36 Reasons Against An Obama Presidency

I find "laundry lists" to be of immense value in helping one to focus their attention on a particular issue. I'm sure you will agree with me that Barack Obama has plenty of "dirty laundry" to deal with...

NOTE: This article has changed. See 'Updates 1 & 2' at the end of this article.

He Has No Executive Experience:
Barack Obama has never managed a large organization. He has never been a state governor. He has never been the mayor of a large city. He has never been a corporate CEO, nor a military commander. Although Obama has served on several boards of directors, to the best of my knowledge, Obama's only executive experience came when he was elected president of the Harvard Law Review in February 1990. In that position he served as editor-in-chief supervising a staff of 80 editors. I assume that he held that position for only one year, as he graduated from Harvard in 1991. That single position hardly qualifies him to assume the role as Chief Executive of the world's only superpower, and Commander-In-Chief of the world's most powerful military.

He Has Limited Legislative Experience:
Obama was elected to the Illinois Senate in November, 1996. He served as state legislator from 1997-2004. Obama resigned from the Illinois Senate in November 2004 following his election to the US Senate. Obama was sworn in as a US senator on January 4, 2005. He announced his presidential candidacy in February 2007. He has few legislative accomplishments worthy of mention. Cheri Jacobus at The Loft blog of the GOPUSA, has determined that Barack Obama actually had only 143 days of experience in the US Senate "in terms of actual work days"...

From the time Barack Obama was sworn in as a United State Senator, to the time he announced he was forming a Presidential exploratory committee, he logged 143 days of experience in the Senate. That's how many days the Senate was actually in session and working. After 143 days of work experience, Obama believed he was ready to be Commander In Chief, Leader of the Free World, and fill the shoes of Abraham Lincoln, FDR, JFK and Ronald Reagan. --Cheri Jacobus, Obama's 143 Days of Senate Experience, May 5, 2008

His Illinois Senate Voting Record:
Barack Obama's voting record in the Illinois State Senate shows that he side-stepped tough issues by voting "Present" nearly 130 times. To be fair, some of those votes were cast at the instruction of Democratic leaders, or because he legitimately objected to provisions of the bill. However, it seems clear that many of those votes were cast to avoid making a tough decision that would anger one party or another. On dozens of occasions, Obama was the only person or one of just a few to vote "Present". Obama's voting record in Illinois demonstrates a lack of principled convictions, and a propensity to avoid conflict.

His U.S. Senate Voting Record:
Barack Obama has claimed that he will be a "uniter" to bring the politicians in Washington together, but his voting record suggests otherwise. I reviewed Obama's voting record HERE, and learned that McCain is far more likely to be a uniter. Obama has little history of "bridge-building". Rather, he has tended to vote nearly straight-line Democrat. According to the Washington Post, "Barack Obama has voted with a majority of his Democratic colleagues 96.0% of the time during the current Congress." Obama will not work across party lines for the good of Americans, despite his claims to the contrary.

His View Of The Constitution:
In an article at The Weekly Standard, Edward Whelan says...

Obama finds himself compelled "to side with Justice Breyer's view of the Constitution -- that it is not a static but rather a living document, and must be read in the context of an ever-changing world." But no one disputes that the Constitution "must be read," and applied, "in the context of an ever-changing world." The central question of the last several decades is, rather, whether it is legitimate for judges to alter the Constitution's meaning willy-nilly -- in particular, whether judges have unconstrained authority to invent new constitutional rights to suit their views of what changing times require. --Edward Whelan, Obama's Constitution, March 17, 2008

In Obama's mind, the answer to that central question must undoubtedly be "yes": the Judiciary can change the meaning of the Constitution "willy-nilly". Otherwise, he would not have opposed the appointment of Justices Roberts and Alito who were known to be strict originalists.

During the Saddleback Civil Forum hosted by Rick Warren, Barack Obama clearly told us what kind of justices he would appoint. When asked, "Which existing Supreme Court Justice would you not have nominated?", Obama replied...

I would not have nominated Clarence Thomas... I profoundly disagree with his interpretation of a lot of the Constitution. I would not nominate Justice Scalia, although I don't think there's any doubt about his intellectual brilliance, because he and I just disagree, you know... John Roberts I have to say was a tougher question only because I find him to be a very compelling person... I will tell you that how I've seen him operate since he went to the bench confirms the suspicions that I had and the reason that I voted against him. --Barack Obama, Saddleback Civil Forum, August 16, 2008

Which leads us to the conclusion then that an Obama administration would appoint more of the "legislate from the bench" Ginsberg, Souter, and Breyer ilk.

In the end, an examination of Obama's record and rhetoric discloses the stuff he is made of -- his own constitution. Beneath the congeniality and charisma lies a leftist partisan who will readily resort to sly deceptions to advance his agenda of liberal judicial activism. Given the likelihood of so many changes in the membership of the Supreme Court over the next eight years, it is particularly important that voters this November recognize the real Obama. --Edward Whelan, Obama's Constitution, March 17, 2008

He Is Weak On Defense:
Barack Obama clearly has no clue about military matters as his own statements reveal. He talked about withdrawing all troops from Iraq in a matter of 16 months, regardless of the situation on the ground. He talks about maintaining a "strike force" in the region, but has never defined exactly what that force would look like, or how it would operate logistically.

So what is Obama talking about? Dr. James Jay Carafano, Senior Research Fellow at the Heritage Foundation says “Who knows?” He explains that “strike force” is “very amorphous - it has no precise definition.” Depending on the mission a “strike force” can be anything from a Navy SEAL platoon charged with rescuing a single hostage to several brigades involving thousands of people. --Jennifer Rubin, HUMAN EVENTS, April 8, 2008

If Obama is imagining that a few helicopters and a dozen or so Special Ops people is all that's needed, then he only has to look at Jimmy Carter's failed rescue attempt of the American hostages in Iran to remind himself that this won't work. He can also look at the "Blackhawk Down" incident in Mogadishu, and realize that a small force of Special Ops troops can be quickly out-gunned and overtaken by Al-Qaeda style militants. And Obama has clearly not learned the lesson that General David Petraeus has been teaching us in Iraq, that is, that the old "light footprint" strategy was obviously a failure. Petraeus showed us that to be effective, you need to go in, root out the enemy, and maintain a presence in the area to prevent insurgents from returning. Take and hold. Take and hold. You can't do that with a "strike force".

Obama talks about a unilateral move to disarm America. He wants to cut "tens of billions of dollars of wasteful (defense) spending". He wants to "cut investments in unproven missile defense systems". He wants to "slow our development in future combat systems". He wants to "institute an independent defense priorities board". He wants to have "a world without nuclear weapons". He "will not develop new nuclear weapons". He wants to "negotiate with Russia to take our ICBMs off 'hair-trigger' alert". And he wants to "achieve deep cuts in our nuclear arsenals". In a nutshell, he wants to neuter our military and eliminate our capability for deterrence, and he is advertising it to a hostile world.

He Wanted To Surrender In Iraq:
No matter how he tries to frame it, Barack Obama believed that the war in Iraq was a lost cause. He said he did not believe the "surge" would work, but in fact would do the "reverse" and make things worse. He thought the situation was hopeless and misguided. He wanted to pull out of Iraq and let the country descend into chaos if need be. He believed Iraq was in a civil war, even long after it was clear that this was not the case. He believed al-Qaeda's influence was being "enhanced" by our presence in Iraq. From Obama's own website...

Because of a war in Iraq that should never have been authorized and should never have been waged, we are now less safe than we were before 9/11... Iraq is a training ground for terror, torn apart by civil war... By refusing to end the war in Iraq, President Bush is giving the terrorists what they really want... I introduced a plan in January (2007) that would have already started bringing our troops out of Iraq, with a goal of removing all combat brigades by March 31, 2008. If the President continues to veto this plan, then ending this war will be my first priority when I take office. There is no military solution in Iraq... al Qaeda's appeal within Iraq is enhanced by our troop presence. (emphasis added)

Too bad that all of those beliefs have now been proven false. The Iraq war was NOT a lost cause. The "surge" DID work. The situation in Iraq was NOT hopeless. Our military presence did NOT give terrorists what they really wanted. Our military presence in Iraq did NOT enhance al Qaeda's appeal, but in fact diminished it. Subscribing to Obama's plan would have meant certain failure in Iraq with serious negative consequences. The Bush surge has been a success with the very real likelihood of victory at hand. In fact, some like Michael Yon, are already saying "the Coalition has won the war in Iraq".

He Has Angered Our Allies:
Obama said in an August 2007 speech, that as president he would order military action against terrorists in Pakistan's tribal region bordering Afghanistan if intelligence warranted it. The comment provoked anger in Pakistan, an ally of the United States in the war on terror. Top Pakistani officials said Obama's comment was irresponsible and likely made for political gain in the race for the Democratic nomination. "It's a very irresponsible statement, that's all I can say," Pakistan's Foreign Minister Khusheed Kasuri told AP Television News. No doubt Obama wanted to appear tough on terrorism when he made the statement. But to openly tell the world that he would invade the sovereign territory of an American ally was a foolish blunder. In theory, invading Pakistan would be worse than Bush's invasion of Iraq. At the very least, Iraq was a recognized American enemy. Obama's pronouncement exposes his inexperience in foreign policy matters.

He Is Endorsed By Our Enemies:
From his own website, Obama said that he "is willing to meet with the leaders of all nations, friend and foe" (emphasis added). He said that he would be willing to meet with Iran at the presidential level, without any preconditions. He said that he would be willing to meet with Cuba and Venezuela. It should come as no surprise then, that Obama has received endorsements from America's enemies.

In Cuba’s Granma newspaper for example, Fidel Castro said that Obama is "the most progressive candidate to the U.S. presidency". On March 25, 2008 Venezuelan President and strongman Hugo Chavez told foreign correspondents that relations with the U.S. would only get worse if McCain were elected, an implicit endorsement of Barack Obama. Chavez later denied any support for Obama.

Also in March, Iran’s President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad told Spain’s El Pais newspaper he didn’t believe Obama would be elected, but that he wouldn’t have a problem meeting with him if he were. In April, Obama said "No Thanks" to an endorsement from terrorist organization Hamas' top political adviser, Ahmed Yousef, who said in an interview on WABC radio, "We like Mr. Obama. We hope he will [win] the election."

In June, Muammar Gaddafi pledged support for Obama. Not to be outdone, Korea's tyrant Kim Jong Il endorsed Obama.

He Is An Abortion Absolutist:
Barack Obama is the most pro-abortion member of the Senate. He received a straight A+ report card from the National Abortion Rights Action League and Planned Parenthood. He supports the late-term procedure known as partial-birth abortion, where the baby's skull is stabbed with scissors in the birth canal and the brains are sucked out to end its life swiftly and ease passage of the corpse into the pan. Partial-birth abortion, said the late Sen. Pat Moynihan, "comes as close to infanticide as anything I have seen in our judiciary." When the Supreme Court upheld the congressional ban on this barbaric procedure, Barack denounced the court for denying "equal rights for women."

Pat Buchanan referred to Obama as an abortion absolutist. "I could find no instance in his entire career in which he voted for any regulation or restriction on the practice of abortion," writes David Freddoso in his new best-seller "The Case Against Barack Obama". In 2007, Barack pledged that, in his first act as president, he will sign the Freedom of Choice Act, which would cancel every federal, state or local regulation or restriction on abortion. The National Organization for Women says this act would abolish all restrictions on the government funding of abortion.

He Supports Infanticide:
Three times in the Illinois legislature, Barack Obama helped block a bill that was designed solely to protect the life of infants already born, and outside the womb, who had miraculously survived the attempt to kill them during an abortion. Three times, Obama voted to let doctors and nurses allow these tiny human beings to die of neglect and be tossed out with the medical waste.

When a bill almost identical to the one Barack fought in Illinois, the Born Alive Infants Protection Act, came to the floor of the U.S. Senate in 2001, the vote was 98 to 0 in favor. Barbara Boxer, the most pro-abortion member of the Senate (before Barack came), spoke out on its behalf: "Who could be more vulnerable than a newborn baby? So, of course, we agree with that." But Obama opposed the Born Alive Infants Protection Act because he feared it might imperil Roe v. Wade. For Obama, Roe v. Wade is more sacred than the life of a newborn.

His Proposed Economic Policies:
Michael Boskin wrote an interesting article in the Wall Street Journal on July 29, 2008 entitled "Obamanomics Is A Recipe For Recession". According to Boskin, Barack Obama wants to abrogate key features of government contracts with energy companies, unilaterally renegotiate our international economic treaties, dramatically raise marginal tax rates on the "rich" (which would make them among the highest in the world), and wants to convert our social insurance system into explicit welfare.

From the property rights and rule of (contract) law foundations of a successful market economy to the specifics of tax, spending, energy, regulatory and trade policy, if the proposals espoused by candidate Obama ever became law, the American economy would suffer a serious setback (emphasis added). --Michael J. Boskin, Obamanomics Is A Recipe For Recession, July 29, 2008

Obama plans to hike the marginal tax rate on earnings from the current maximum of 35% to 39.6%. He wants to phase out various itemized deductions which would raise rates another 1.2%. And he wants to institute an additional Social Security tax for those making more than $250,000 of up to 12.4%. Obama also wants to increase the maximum marginal rate on dividends and capital gains from the current 15% to 28%. In other words, top wage earners would see a reduction of one-third in after-tax wages! For a chart showing the numbers, click HERE. If you think the economy is bad now, wait until Obama gets done with it.

His Position On Trade Issues:
Senator Obama has taken the most radical position of any candidate on NAFTA. At an Ohio Democratic campaign debate in February 2008, he promised to tell Canada and Mexico "that he will opt out [of NAFTA] unless we renegotiate the core labor and environmental standards." Nevertheless, renegotiating labor and environmental standards with Canada and Mexico would do little to fix America's huge trade deficits. US trade with North America is a two-way street; however, US trade with Asia is not. For decades, American industry has seen Asian industry, mostly Japanese and Chinese, steal market share through their governments' currency manipulations and restrictions on US imports. As a result, the United States has lost industry after industry to Asia.

Likewise, Obama opposes CFTA (the Colombia Free Trade Agreement), which would be good for America. Aside from continuing to improve our political relations, the Colombia Free Trade Agreement would establish non tariff trade with Colombia. Colombia is already trading with the United States duty free, however there are heavy taxes on U.S. imports to Colombia. This agreement will not promote the loss of jobs in the United States, but will level the playing field when it comes to trade with Colombia. Obama doesn't seem to understand that the US will be the primary beneficiary of CFTA.

The Columbia Free Trade Agreement would help the victims of Hurricane Katrina, specifically the ones in New Orleans. Mayor Ray Nagin has publicly pleaded to Congress for approval of the CFTA because it would help New Orleans grow and become economically stable. Nagin wrote to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi in November 2007, "New Orleans is becoming an even greater international city in the wake of Hurricane Katrina, and we are making every effort to capitalize on trade liberalization that will flow from these FTAs (Free Trade Agreements). Our port system is ideally situated to take advantage of the Latin American FTAs."

He Is Too Liberal:
The National Journal rated Obama as the "Most Liberal Senator In 2007". Obama has been moving steadily leftward after "ranking the 16th- and 10th-most-liberal during his first two years in the Senate". How can someone be a "uniter" when he moves steadily away from the views of those on the right and in the center?

His Marxist Influences:
Barack Obama's childhood was influenced by Marxists. In his book, Dreams From My Father, Obama describes a relationship with a man he refers to simply as "Frank." He describes Frank as an older, black poet. "Frank" has now been identified as Frank Marshall Davis, a known member of the Communist Party USA (CPUSA).

Cliff Kincaid at Accuracy In Media says that, "In his books, Obama admits attending 'socialist conferences' and coming into contact with Marxist literature", although Obama downplays the significance of these. Kincaid considers the Obama connection to the Communist Party through Davis "ominous"...

Decades ago, the CPUSA had tens of thousands of members, some of them covert agents who had penetrated the U.S. Government. It received secret subsidies from the old Soviet Union... The communists knew who "Frank" was, and they know who Obama is. In fact, one academic who travels in communist circles understands the significance of the Davis-Obama relationship. Professor Gerald Horne, a contributing editor of the Communist Party journal Political Affairs, talked about it during a speech last March... The remarks are posted online under the headline, "Rethinking the History and Future of the Communist Party." --Cliff Kincaid, Obama’s Communist Mentor, February 18, 2008

Kincaid here seems to be hinting at what others have been more openly wondering: Is Obama a Marxist Mole? Regardless of what such an inquiry might unearth, apparently the relationship between Davis and Obama continued until Barack went off to college...

Obama writes in Dreams From My Father that he saw "Frank" only a few days before he left Hawaii for college, and that Davis seemed just as radical as ever. Davis called college "An advanced degree in compromise" and warned Obama not to forget his "people" and not to "start believing what they tell you about equal opportunity and the American way and all that ####." Davis also complained about foot problems, the result of "trying to force African feet into European shoes," Obama wrote. --Cliff Kincaid, Obama’s Communist Mentor, February 18, 2008

His Socialist Connections:
In another article, Cliff Kincaid describes Obama's current connections with the international socialist movement...

Obama's socialist backing goes back at least to 1996, when he received the endorsement of the Chicago branch of the Democratic Socialists of America (DSA) for an Illinois state senate seat... DSA describes itself as the largest socialist organization in the United States and the principal U.S. affiliate of the Socialist International. The Socialist International (SI) has what is called "consultative status" with the United Nations. In other words, it works hand-in-glove with the world body. --Cliff Kincaid, Obama’s International Socialist Connections, February 14, 2008

George Soros, among others, has been a supporter of, and contributor to, Obama's campaign. Soros is a wealthy financial speculator, stock investor, philanthropist, and political activist with socialist leanings. He is a former member of the Board of Directors of the Council on Foreign Relations which proposed an international super-state as early as 1944. He donated large sums of money in a failed effort to defeat President George W. Bush's bid for re-election in 2004. Soros gave $3 million to the Center for American Progress, committed $5 million to MoveOn.org, while he and his friend Peter Lewis each gave America Coming Together $10 million. (All were groups that worked to support Democrats in the 2004 election.)

Soros is the author of a book entitled George Soros On Globalization. In his preface, Soros states...

I contend that globalization has been lopsided: The development or our international institutions has not kept pace with the development of international financial markets and our political arrangements have lagged behind globalization of the economy. Based on these premises I have formulated a set of practical proposals that would make global capitalism more stable and equitable... My goal in writing this book was to form a different kind of coalition whose mission would be to reform and strengthen our international institutions and create new ones where necessary to address the social concerns that have fueled the current discontent. (emphasis added) --George Soros, George Soros On Globalization

Note that the goal of Soros is to "reform... our international institutions" (ie, the U.N) in an effort "to address social concerns". Soros wants to speed up globalization of international "political arrangements" in order to make sure that "global capitalism" is more "equitable". He is in fact a supporter and sponsor of international socialism who advocates the redistribution of wealth from rich countries to poor countries.

His Global Poverty Act:
Barack Obama wants to give away 0.7 percent of the U.S. gross national product (GNP) to foreign aid, which over 13 years he said would amount to $845 billion "over and above what the U.S. already spends" on foreign aid. The bill was introduced in the U.S. House of Representatives by Congressman Adam Smith in 2007. The version of the bill in the U.S. Senate (S.2433) is sponsored by... you guessed it, Senator Barack Obama. According to Obama's Senate website (see HERE), "We can – and must – make it a priority of our foreign policy to commit to eliminating extreme poverty... As we strive to rebuild America’s standing in the world, this legislation will not only commit to reducing global poverty, but will also demonstrate our promise and support to those in the developing world."

In other words, Obama wants to send our hard-earned tax dollars around the world in order to "rebuild America's standing in the world". Does Obama believe it is the responsibility of the US to try and eliminate poverty in the world? Is he aware that we were unable to eliminate poverty here in the US through President Johnson's "War On Poverty"? Does Obama seriously think we can end "extreme" poverty in the world? Is he trying to assuage his own personal guilt for living in a rich country? Is he trying to buy the friendship of the world? Or, is he purposely taking the US toward global socialism and one-world government?

According to an article at Accuracy In Media, "S.2433 is clearly setting the stage for a global tax". Obama's bill is "setting America up for imposition of a global tax, controlled by the United Nations. For the first time, the U.S. could be forced to adopt a global tax at the behest of an international body" (emphasis added). Make no mistake about it, if Obama is elected, America's sovereignity will be seriously eroded, its economy will be wrecked, and we will move steps closer to a one-world government.

His Association With Bill Ayers:
In 1995, State Senator Alice Palmer introduced her chosen successor, Barack Obama, to William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. Ayers and Dohrn are "two of the most notorious — and unrepentant — figures from the violent fringe of the 1960s anti-war movement".

The visit by Obama to the home of Ayers and Dohrn suggests a rite of passage for Obama, a blessing on his campaign if you will. But the nature of the relationship between Ayers and Obama is unclear. They have been called "friends". They served together on the board of a Chicago foundation. KFI Radio Host John Batchelor described Ayers on FoxNews as an Obama "mentor".

Ayers and Dohrn were part of the radical Weather Underground group that was involved with 25 bombings. They disappeared for 10 years from 1970 to 1980 "after a bomb — designed to kill army officers in New Jersey — accidentally destroyed a Greenwich Village townhouse". They were never prosecuted. "I don't regret setting bombs; I feel we didn't do enough," Ayers told the New York Times in 2001.

To see a picture of Ayers stomping on an American flag in 2001, and to learn more about this notorious radical, click HERE.

His Association With Tony Rezko:
Barack Obama has admitted that the 2005 land deal that he and Tony Rezko were involved in was a "boneheaded" mistake, in part because his friend Rezko was already rumored to be under federal investigation. The newly elected Obama bought his $1.65 million home on the same day (June 15th), that Rezko's wife bought the plot of land next to it from the same seller for $625,000. Seven months later she sold a slice of the land to the trust that Obama had put the house into, so the senator could expand his garden.

Obama has strenuously denied suggestions that the same-day sale enabled him to pay $300,000 under the house's asking price because Mrs. Rezko paid full price for the adjoining lot, or that he asked the Rezkos for help in the matter. Both actions would be clear violations of Senate ethics rules barring the granting or asking of favors.

Still, there are unresolved questions. Obama admits that he and Rezko took a tour of the house before it and the adjoining plot were sold. Financial records given to federal prosecutors a year later show Mrs. Rezko had a salary of only $37,000 and assets of only $35,000. In court proceedings at that time, to explain how much his bail should be, Mr. Rezko declared that he had "no income, negative cash flow, no liquid assets."

So where did the money for Mrs. Rezko's $125,000 down payment (and the collateral for her $500,000 loan from a local bank controlled by Amrish Mahajan - like Rezko a Chicago political fixer) come from? The London Times reports that, three weeks before the land transactions, Nadhmi Auchi, an Iraqi billionaire living in London, loaned $3.5 million to Mr. Rezko, who was his Chicago business partner. Auchi's office says he had "no involvement in or knowledge of" the property purchase. He is a press-shy property developer (estimated worth: $4 billion) who was convicted of corruption in France in 2003 for his involvement in the Elf affair, the biggest political and corporate fraud inquiry in Europe since World War II. He was fined $3 million and given a 15-month prison term that was suspended provided he committed no further crimes.

His Home Loan Discount:
According to Joe Stephens at the Washington Post, Barack Obama got a discount on his home loan. Obama bought "a restored Georgian mansion in an upscale Chicago neighborhood" for $1.65 million by securing a $1.32 million loan from the Northern Trust company in Illinois. Obama was able to get a favorable interest rate of 5.625% on a 30-year fixed-rate mortgage, which was below average for such loans in Chicago at the time. Obama's loan was "unusually large". It also turns out that "Obama paid no origination fee or discount points, as some consumers do to reduce their interest rates".

In Obama's case, he received a lower rate than the average offered at the time in Chicago for similarly structured jumbo loans. He secured his final mortgage commitment on June 8, 2005, and during that week, rates on similar loans for which information is available averaged 5.93 percent, according to HSH Associates, which surveys lenders. Another survey firm, Bankrate.com, placed the average at 6 percent... Jumbo loans are for amounts up to $650,000, but the Obamas' $1.32 million loan was so large that few comparables are available. Mortgage specialists say that many high-end buyers pay cash. --Joe Stephens, Obama Got Discount On Home Loan, July 2, 2008

The recent controversies surrounding discounted loans to Senators Christopher Dodd (D-CT) and Kent Conrad (D-ND) by Countrywide Financial, have focused attention on this issue and have "resulted in a preliminary Senate Ethics Committee inquiry into the Dodd and Conrad loans". Even within Obama's own campaign organization, James A. Johnson (head of Obama's VP search committee) was forced to resign when it was revealed that he too had received a favorable loan from Countrywide. Should Barack Obama be any different? Why hasn't he come under the scrutiny of the Senate Ethics Committee? Why hasn't Obama been forced to resign?

Obama's house purchase has been a source of controversy. In 2006, the Chicago Tribune reported that on the day of the closing, the wife of Obama's longtime friend and fundraiser Antoin "Tony" Rezko closed on an adjoining lot that had been the estate's side yard. The Obamas bought the house for $300,000 less than the asking price of $1.95 million, while Rezko's wife, Rita, bought the neighboring lot for the full asking price of $625,000. Rita Rezko later sold a portion of the undeveloped lot to the Obamas, enlarging the senator's yard. Tony Rezko already had been linked to a grand jury investigation involving public corruption. (In June), he was convicted of 16 counts in an influence-peddling scheme that reached the highest levels of Illinois state government. (emphasis added) --Joe Stephens, Obama Got Discount On Home Loan, July 2, 2008

His Association With Jeremiah Wright:
Barack Obama sat in a pew and listened to the anti-American, anti-Semitic, black-separatist, and racist hate speech of his pastor Jeremiah Wright for over 20 years. Obama does not appear to have been offended by the words of his pastor, certainly not enough to have left the church. And certainly not enough to refrain from getting married there, or raising his children in that environment. Therefore, one is forced to assume that Obama must have been comfortable with Wright's sermons which included such remarks as:

- Racism is how this country was founded and how this country is still run!
- (Americans) are deeply involved in the importing of drugs, the exporting of guns and the training of professional KILLERS.
- (Americans) believe in white supremacy and black inferiority and believe it more than we believe in God.
- (Americans) conducted radiation experiments on our own people.
- (Americans) care nothing about human life if the ends justify the means!
- And. And! GOD! Has GOT! To be SICK! OF THIS SHIT!

Wright also made these statements in a sermon immediately following the attacks of 9/11:
- No. No. No! Not God Bless America. God damn America!
- God damn America... for killing innocent people.
- God damn America for threatening citizens as less than humans.
- God damn America as long as she tries to act like she is God and supreme.
- (Americans) bombed Hiroshima. (Americans) bombed Nagasaki. And (Americans) nuked far more than the thousands in New York and the Pentagon and (Americans) never batted an eye.
- (Americans) have supported state terrorism against the Palestinians and black South Africans.
- America's chickens, are coming home, to ROOST!
- The government lied about inventing the HIV virus as a means of genocide against people of color. The government lied.

So then, did Obama condemn such statements? Absolutely not...

Over the years, Wright became not only Obama's pastor, but his mentor. The title of Obama's recent book, The Audacity of Hope, is based on a sermon by Wright... Wright is one of the first people Obama thanked after his Senate victory in 2004, and he recently name-checked Wright in his speech to civil rights leaders in Selma, Alabama. --Ryan Lizza, The Agitator, The New Republic Online, March 9, 2007

According to Lizza, "Wright was a former Muslim and black nationalist". He seems to have developed a bastardized version of Christianity which tries to blend Muslim and Christian thought with black nationalism. It is a form of Christianity which few Christians (or Christ himself) would recognize. Wright's Trinity United Church of Christ on Chicago's south side, professes a form of Black Liberation Theology.

Reverend Wright’s hate sermons are virtually identical as those given by his good friend, Nation of Islam leader Louis Farrakhan, who followed in the footsteps of Malcolm X. --Bud White, Jeremiah Wright Was a Muslim: Why That Matters, No Quarter Blog, April 10, 2008

Wright is a close confidant and supporter of Minister Louis Farrakhan. The leader of the Nation of Islam has called Jews "bloodsuckers" who practice a "gutter religion," and has ascended to the apex of virulent anti-Semitism in the Black community and indeed worldwide. Wright was among those deeply affected in the early eighties by Farrakhan’s Southside Chicago activism. In 1984, Wright was one of the inner circle that traveled with Farrakhan to visit Libyan strongman Colonel Muammar Khadafy. The ostentatious Farrakhan junket came at a time when Khadafy had been identified as the world’s chief financier of international terrorism, including the Black September group behind the Munich Olympics massacre...

The Farrakhan-Wright connection is no distant matter of the turbulent eighties. Farrakhan, Wright and Wright’s Church have remained in close esteem until this very day. As recently as December 2007, the Church’s publication, Trumpet Newsmagazine, bestowed upon Farrakhan its highest honor, the "Dr. Jeremiah A. Wright, Jr. Trumpeter Award" for Lifetime Achievement. An interview with Farrakhan in the magazine concludes with the words, "he truly epitomizes greatness." Wright himself described Farrakhan in that article as "a 20th and 21st Century giant."
--Edwin Black, The Cutting Edge News, March 17, 2008

In February 2008, Obama was forced to denounce an endorsement from Louis Farrakhan. The endorsement from Farrakhan came no doubt, because of Farrakhan's familiarity with Wright and Obama, all of whom were based in the Chicago area. Once Jeremiah Wright's racial extremism began to surface, Barack Obama tried to cover for his long time friend and "mentor". In a widely-anticipated speech, Obama said...

And this helps explain, perhaps, my relationship with Reverend Wright. As imperfect as he may be, he has been like family to me. He strengthened my faith, officiated my wedding, and baptized my children. Not once in my conversations with him have I heard him talk about any ethnic group in derogatory terms, or treat whites with whom he interacted with anything but courtesy and respect. He contains within him the contradictions -- the good and the bad -- of the community that he has served diligently for so many years. I can no more disown him than I can disown the black community. I can no more disown him than I can my white grandmother... --Barack Obama, Philadelphia Speech, March 18, 2008

Jeremiah Wright however, in what seemed to be a blatant attempt to scuttle Obama's candidacy, appeared before the National Press Club on April 28, 2008. Reverend Wright "brought along his own cheering section" and "went on an ego-driven radical rant that must have (had) the Obama camp tearing its collective hair out". Wright refused to disassociate himself from Louis Farrakhan, declined to retract his allegation that the US used AIDS to commit genocide against black Americans, said it was fair to compare US Marines with Roman legionnaires, and indicated his church had supported the Communist-backed Sandinistas.

On April 29th, Obama flip-flopped on his earlier position and "disowned" Jeremiah Wright, as a matter of political expediency. Although for some that might seem to be the end of the controversy, the question still remains: How could Barack Obama hold Jeremiah Wright in such high esteem for so long unless he agreed with Wright's positions on at least some basic level?

His Wife:
Barack Obama is married to a woman who has never been proud of America during her entire adult life. She was 44 years old when she made the statement and has been an adult since she was 18 years old. So for 26 years, Michelle Obama found nothing about America to be proud of. From 1982 until her husband won the Iowa caucuses in January 2008, she lived a hopeless existence of dreariness, bereft of pride.

She apparently had no pride in her country when:
- She was accepted into Princeton and Harvard, despite the fact she had what she says were lousy grades.
- Americans put the first black man, and then the first black woman into space.
- The first African-American was crowned Miss America.
- Martin Luther King Day was established as a federal holiday.
- Jesse Jackson announced his candidacy for president.
- The first space shuttle landed at the Kennedy Space Center.
- Reagan said "Tear down this wall!"
- Sharon Pratt Dixon Kelly was elected the first black woman mayor of a major US city.
- Carol Mosely Braun became the first black woman to be a US Senator.
- Carol Mosely Braun announced her candidacy for president.
- Colin Powell became the first black Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff.
- Colin Powell and Condoleezza Rice became the first black man and black woman respectively, to be appointed Secretary of State.
- NY firefighters gave their lives on 9/11.
- Passengers of United Flight 93 fought off the 9/11 hi-jackers crashing their plane in Shanksville, PA.
- Americans donated overwhelmingly following the Tsunami in Asia.

But perhaps this is to be expected from a woman who sat in a pew of Reverend Wright's church for more than 20 years listening to the jaded, anti-American rhetoric of a black racist. Her disdain for America has been cultivated over most of her adult life. Is this a woman we want to be our First Lady?

He Is Not A Post-Racial Candidate:
Barack Obama has claimed that he is a post-racial candidate who will transcend race. Yet, such a claim is difficult to believe considering his actions as a presidential candidate. For example, does Obama appear to be post-racial when he refers to his own grandmother as "a typical white person"? Is he post-racial when every time someone mentions race in almost any context, he cries "racism"?

It is also difficult to believe that Obama could be a post-racial candidate based on his past history. For example, was he post-racial when he called his black-racist pastor, Jeremiah Wright, his "mentor". Was he post-racial, when he attended a church for over 20 years that unashamedly declared its Afro-centric "Black Value System".

And finally, it is difficult to believe that Obama is post-racial, considering his own writings. In Dreams of My Father, he says he would "never emulate white men and brown men whose fates didn't speak to my own. It was into my father’s image, the black man, son of Africa, that I’d packed all the attributes I sought in myself, the attributes of Martin and Malcolm, DuBois and Mandela." Or this, from his book Audacity of Hope: "It remained necessary to prove which side you were on, to show your loyalty to the black masses, to strike out and name names."

In fact, Obama is now so used to playing the race card, that he got tired of waiting for John McCain to say something that might be mistaken as a "racist comment" (to his credit, McCain gave him no ammunition). Therefore, Obama decided to implement a "first strike" attack by "preemtively accusing his opponents of racism". Barack Obama had the gall to say, "They’re going to try to make you afraid of me. He’s young and inexperienced and he’s got a funny name. And did I mention he’s black?" He doesn't sound "post-racial" to me at all.

He Is Too Sensitive:
Barack Obama is sensitive about his big ears. He is sensitive about the color of his skin. He feels that for some he is too white, and for others he is too black. He is overly sensitive about race. He has lashed out against Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton, Geraldine Ferraro, George W. Bush, and others for making incidental comments. For a more in-depth discussion of this issue, see my article on the subject HERE.

He Is An Elitist:
On April 6, 2008, in an unguarded moment when he believed there were no recording devices present, Barack Obama told a group of wealthy California backers in San Francisco, that Pennsylvanians are essentially hicks...

You go into some of these small towns in Pennsylvania, and like a lot of small towns in the Midwest, the jobs have been gone now for 25 years and nothing's replaced them... And it's not surprising then they get bitter, they cling to guns or religion or antipathy to people who aren't like them or anti-immigrant sentiment or anti-trade sentiment as a way to explain their frustrations. --Barack Obama, April 6, 2008

Obama's implication of course, is that working class Pennsylvanians, and Midwesterners in general, are culturally inferior. He speaks of "small towns" as opposed, presumably, to "urban culture centers". He demeans gun-owners in a way that suggests he cannot relate to sportsmen or hunting enthusiasts. He demeans Christians in a way that suggests he cannot relate to people of faith, and does not personally value religion. He demeans those who have legitimate concerns about American jobs being outsourced to other countries; who have legitimate concerns about border security; and who have legitimate fears that our country is being "invaded" by illegal immigrants. And worse yet, he demeans those who are footing the bill for all of those illegals.

Obama was clearly perpetuating the stereotype of the "small town", back-woods, religious hick. Undoubtedly he was doing so in an attempt to impress the wealthy, urban elite he was addressing, as if the superiority complexes of the elite need bolstering. One has to question the motives behind such a negative characterization, and we are forced to assume that these are Obama's true feelings. One must also question whether or not Obama can truly represent all Americans.

He Is Presumptuous And Arrogant:
The Washington Post's Dana Milbank said the presumptive Democratic nominee is becoming the "presumptuous nominee". Barack Obama is quoted as saying, "This is the moment... that the world is waiting for," adding: "I have become a symbol of the possibility of America returning to our best traditions." Not only that, but he is acting as if he's already been elected...

Some say the supremely confident Obama -- nearly 100 days from the election, he pronounces that "the odds of us winning are very good" -- has become a president-in-waiting. But in truth, he doesn't need to wait: He has already amassed the trappings of the office, without those pesky decisions. The Atlantic's Marc Ambinder reported (in late July) that Obama has directed his staff to begin planning for his transition to the White House...

TIME magazine described the presidential-looking seal his campaign developed as "presumptuous". David Letterman did a comedy segment called "The Top Ten Signs Obama Is Overconfident".

Bonnie Erbe at US News & World Report referred to Obama's campaign as "arrogant". She opines...

Sen. Barack Obama needs to step off his "holier than thou" platform and get his designer shoes dirty. He needs to let voters catch a glimpse of the regular guy who may actually lurk under his veneer of superiority. From using a logo resembling a presidential seal at one speech earlier this year (an obvious error and never seen again) to addressing a crowd of 200,000 in Berlin and meeting with heads of state before he has reason to, Obama's puerile self-absorption may backfire on him and turn off the very voters he needs to turn on: the white working class. --Bonnie Erbe, US News & World Report, July 30, 2008

Senator Obama created a controversy when he proposed to speak in front of Berlin's Brandenburg Gate. German Chancellor Angela Merkel greeted the idea "with a certain bewilderment ... No German politician would come up with the idea to do such a thing at the National Mall in D.C." Obama apparently felt the photo-op would remind voters of Kennedy's "Ich bin ein Berliner" speech, and Reagan's "Tear down this wall" speech. He wanted to appear presidential without even having yet obtained his party's nomination. But I remember Kennedy and Reagan, and Obama is no Kennedy or Reagan.

Rush Limbaugh observed: "Lots of speculation on the web, and in whispering circles, about why Obama's foreign trip -- a slam-dunk success substantively and in photo-op terms hasn't resulted in a polling bump. The emerging conventional wisdom seems to be that the trip is a bit too grand, too... presumptuous, and voters are wary of that" (emphasis added).

He Doesn't Like America Very Much:
Barack Obama's two principle themes throughout the campaign have been "Hope" and "Change". One assumes of course, that Obama is running a national campaign and is speaking to all Americans. Therefore, it is clear that Obama cannot be simply referring to a "change" of administration from Republican to Democrat, because then he would be speaking to only half of America. Similarly, he must not be talking about a "change" of view from conservative to liberal, because then he would likewise be excluding a large segment of the American population.

Obama's implication of course, is that America at the moment is "hopeless". Likewise, America must be in sad shape, because it needs to be "changed". If America had hope, why would Obama need to bring it? If America was great, why would Obama want to change it? His is a rather negative view of America, and he apparently has little pride in his country as it now exists.

Jonah Goldberg wrote an excellent opinion piece at USA Today, in which he clearly points this out. Goldberg says Obama "sees an America in which the cup is half-empty". He quotes Obama from a campaign stop in Cedar Rapids, Iowa as saying, "I decided I won't wear that (flag) pin on my chest... Instead, I'm going to try to tell the American people what I believe will make this country great and, hopefully, that will be a testimony to my patriotism" (emphasis added). Note that Obama does not believe America is now "great". Rather, Obama is going to tell us what he believes will make (future tense) America great.

Barack Obama wants to "remake" America. And according to Michelle Obama, "The change Barack is talking about is hard, so don’t get too excited because Barack is going to demand that you too be different." But, as Goldberg asks, "What if you don't want to be 'different'?"

Rush Limbaugh provided an excellent analysis of Obama's Berlin speech which also addresses this issue. Here are a few of Rush's comments...

This "citizen of the world stuff," I know what he means by it, but why isn't it good enough to say, "I'm a proud United States citizen coming to speak to you today," about whatever you want to say our challenges are? Why do you have to deemphasize that you are an American?...
He ripped his own country, here. He took shots at the United States of America while in Berlin speaking as a post-nationalist citizen of the world.

Okay. So now he has to go apologize for the United States of America... "We haven't perfected ourselves." You know, that's a key phrase, by the way, is one of the things that drives liberalism is the fact that they think people and institutions can be perfected. They think they can be perfect.

This is change... The change is: America sucks, America's deficient, America's guilty, but America is now willing to pay the price because we have a Messiah who understands the faults, the egregious errors made by the United States and her people. We are racists, sexists, bigots, homophobes. We discriminate against people who worship differently than we do, have skin color different from ours, and we have not always behaved properly in the world. And we torture. And we, of course, are biased against people who want to get into our country illegally. We have a lot to pay for. Not to mention that we are primarily the country responsible for climate change, shrinking the Atlantic coastline, melting the Arctic ice. This is the change. You want change? This is the change. --Rush Limbaugh, Citizen of the World Rips America, July 24, 2008

He Cannot Speak Without A Teleprompter:
Barack Obama has been surprisingly inarticulate on several occasions, particularly during Q&A sessions. Despite his ability to deliver soaring rhetoric in prepared speeches, he fumbles for words during ordinary conversation. That is why Obama refuses to participate in townhall style meetings with John McCain. David Letterman's Obama "Uh" Count brings home the point quite clearly. And while liberals were quick to bash George W. Bush over the last 8 years for his occasional verbal faux pas, we hear little or nothing about Obama's sometimes painful stuttering style.

He Is Easily Intimidated:
Obama says he is willing to meet with America's enemies without any preconditions. Yet, he was unwilling to participate in a FoxNews debate that was moderated by Brit Hume. He is unwilling to sit down in a one-on-one interview with Sean Hannity or Bill O'Reilly [Editor's Note: see Update 2 at the end of this article]. And he is unwilling to participate in townhall meetings with John McCain. If Obama is afraid to meet with Americans of differing opinions, how can we expect him to be tough on our enemies when he meets them face-to-face?

He Is Prone To Gaffes:
On Memorial Day 2008, he gave a speech in New Mexico that he opened by saying, "On this Memorial Day, as our nation honors its unbroken line of fallen heroes -- and I see many of them in the audience here today..."

He said he has visited 57 states with one left to go, but he wouldn't be going to Alaska or Hawaii because his campaign couldn't justify it.

On the anniversary of the Bloody Sunday march in Selma, Alabama, he claimed that his parents conceived him as a direct result of that event: "There was something stirring across the country because of what happened in Selma, Alabama, because some folks are willing to march across a bridge. So they got together and Barack Obama Jr. was born." Except that Obama was born in 1961, and the Selma march took place in 1965.

While speaking to the press on July 22, 2008 in Amman Jordan, Obama meant to convey that the United States would continue to strongly support Israel. But instead he said, "Well let me be absolutely clear. Israel is a strong friend of Israel's."

On July 30, 2008, Obama said, "There are things that you can do individually though, to save energy. Making sure your tires are properly inflated. Simple things. But we could save all the oil that they're talking about getting off drilling, if everybody was just inflating their tires."

If George W. Bush had said such things, the liberal media would be deriding him as an idiot and a buffoon. But nary a peep about Obama's gaffes.

He Is A Flip-Flopper:
On May 18, 2008, Obama stated that Iran doesn't "pose a serious threat to us" saying that "tiny countries" with small defense budgets can't do us harm – and then the next day he flip-flopped saying, "I’ve made it clear for years that the threat from Iran is grave."

On March 14, 2008 in an article at the Huffington Post, Obama writes, "The statements that Rev. Wright made that are the cause of this controversy were not statements I personally heard him preach while I sat in the pews of Trinity or heard him utter in private conversation." However, on March 18th Obama gave another speech where he again flip-flopped saying, "I have already condemned, in unequivocal terms, the statements of Reverend Wright that have caused such controversy... Did I ever hear him make remarks that could be considered controversial while I sat in church? Yes."

Obama has even got Democrats and liberals angry over his flip-flops. As soon as he seemed to have the Democratic nomination sewn up, Obama took a sudden right turn that left some liberals in shock. In an effort to make himself appear more palatable to voters in the general election, Obama flip-flopped on several issues that liberals felt were sacred, including: gun control, FISA, and opposition to NAFTA. He even put his lapel flag-pin back on.

"In the last week, Barack Obama has handed progressives a string of stinging rebukes," decried Democratic blogger Jason Rosenbaum on the far-left Huffington Post Web site.

"Am I bummed... that Obama and most of our Democratic leaders caved in on FISA? Absolutely, and there's nothing wrong with saying so," said blogger Mike Lux at the Open Left Web site.

Obama even suggested that he might "refine" his policies on an Iraq timeline for withdrawal, which drew the immediate ire of liberals nationwide. The negative response was so loud and swift, that Obama called a second news conference within only four hours of his earlier statement. He modified his earlier remarks by saying, "Let me be as clear as I can be, I intend to end this war. My first day in office I will bring the Joint Chiefs of Staff in and I will give them a new mission and that is to end this war – responsibly, deliberately, but decisively."

He Is Duplicitous:
At the same time that Obama was taking his anti-NAFTA position, according to Canadian television accounts, one of his economic advisors (Austin Goolsbee) was calling the Canadian consulate in Chicago to tell them that Obama's anti-NAFTA stance was mere campaign rhetoric. "Don’t worry, it's just campaign rhetoric. Don't take it seriously." And while the Obama campaign has claimed that Austin Goolsbee was acting on his own, it seems hard to believe that Goolsbee would take it upon himself to reach out to Canada's Amabassador to the US, Michael Wilson, and start clarifying Obama's economic policies. Did Barack Obama try to endear himself to the blue-collar voters of Ohio by saying one thing publicly, while at the same time trying to calm the fears of our trading partners by saying another thing privately? The answer seems to be, yes he did. You can see a video about this story by clicking HERE.

His Distortions:
Barack Obama knowingly distorted John McCain's position on the Iraq war. He said, "John McCain wants to continue a war in Iraq perhaps as long as 100 years," during a town hall meeting in Lancaster, PA. Obama also said, "I would have a strike force in the region, perhaps in Iraq... That’s very different from saying we'd have a permanent occupation in Iraq. And it's certainly different from saying we would have a high level of combat troops inside Iraq for a decade or two decades or, as John McCain said, perhaps 100 years.”

But what McCain actually said in context was, "President Bush has talked about our staying for 50 years, maybe 100. We've been in Japan for 60 years, in South Korea for 50 years or so. That would be fine with me as long as Americans are not being injured or harmed or killed" (emphasis added). McCain's statement in no way suggests a 100-year shooting war as Obama implied. And it in no way suggests a "permananet occupation" of Iraq with "a high level of combat troops". The non-partisan group Factcheck.org says Obama's claim that McCain wants 100 years of war in Iraq is a distortion to the point of "rank falsehood".

He Has A Credibility Problem:
A recent Google search of "Obama's Lies" returned 12,200,000 results. Apparently, a lot of people seem to think that Obama has lied on more than one occasion, and some would say on many occasions. To be fair, not all of the supposed lies are valid. And some of the supposed lies are in fact nothing more than simple factual errors which may be the result of insufficient research or preconceived notions on the part of Obama - a common problem for politicians on the stump. Nevertheless, Obama's campaign has been plagued by so many mistaken facts, mis-statements, embellishments, fanciful recollections, distortions, clarifying statements, flip-flops, and what appear to be outright lies, that Obama's credibility has been seriously jeopardized.

A case in point - Barack Obama often boasts he is "the only candidate who isn't taking a dime from Washington lobbyists," yet his fundraising team includes 38 members of law firms that were paid $138 million last year to lobby the federal government. Those lawyers, including 10 former federal lobbyists, have pledged to raise at least $3.5 million for the Illinois senator's presidential race. Employees of their firms have given Obama's campaign $2.26 million, according to a USA TODAY analysis of campaign finance data.

John Derbyshire at the National Review Online suggests that some of Obama's Lies are "not so much lies as a sort of slippery sleight-of-mouth". After listing a series of questionable statements from a recent speech, Derbyshire says, "You can go through Obama's speech pulling out questionable points like that from nearly every paragraph. The speech is slippery, evasive, dishonest, and sometimes insulting." John Hinderaker at Power Line Blog suggests that Obama might be a "Serial Liar.

As mentioned elsewhere, he even has Democrats and liberals angry at him. Thus, Barack Obama appears to be an equal opportunity offender. He "lies" (or 'flip-flops', if you prefer) to Republicans, Independents and Democrats alike. As a result, he has created a serious credibility problem for himself.

He Is Sometimes Incomprehensible:
When Barack Obama said, "America is no longer what it could be - what it once was", he had plenty of people scratching their heads. What did he mean by that statement? If America is no longer what it could be, then at one time in the past it must have been "what it could be". But if in fact it was in the past "what it could be", then... it must not have been what it "could be", but in fact what it WAS. And what exactly was that?

Is he suggesting perhaps that America was great in the past, but has since fallen into mediocrity? At what point in the past was America greater than it is now? And if this is in fact what Obama meant, then to what past conditions would Obama want to return? Is he referring to the Clinton years when the president was cheating on his wife and getting impeached? ...when we had opportunities to take out Osama bin Laden but failed to do so? ...when the CIA and FBI wouldn't talk to each other thus setting the stage for 9/11? ...when Dot-Com bubbles were being created only to burst and drag down the economy?

Or, maybe Obama is referring to the Reagan years, when there was a conservative Republican in the White House? Or, maybe he is referring to the Carter years when 52 Americans were taken hostage for 444 days and inflation was 12%? Perhaps he wants to return to the Cold War/Disco days of the '70s? Or, perhaps the Vietnam days of the '60s? How about the Jim Crow days of the 50s? Or, maybe he wants to return to WWII when thousands would die on a single day? To what era does Obama want to return? And what made America greater then, than it is now?

Or did Obama mis-speak (AGAIN), and simply mean that America has never been what it yet could be? If so, he has a funny way of saying it. Frankly, I'm stumped. If you can interpret what Obama was trying to say, please feel free to enlighten me.

His "Christian" Faith:
John Jay, the first Chief Justice of the United States, is quoted as saying...

Providence has given to our people the choice of their rulers, and it is the duty, as well as the privilege and interest of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers. --John Jay, The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay, October 12, 1816

And while Barack Obama identifies himself as a "Christian", we are faced with the fact that some of his views do not correspond with those of traditional Christians. For example, Obama supports same-sex unions, abortion and even infanticide. What exactly then, does Barack Obama believe? How does he define his Christianity?

Cathleen Falsani at the Chicago Sun-Times provides us with an interesting look into what Obama believes. Her April 5, 2004 article is indeed enlightening. She quotes Obama as saying...

I am a Christian. So, I have a deep faith. I'm rooted in the Christian tradition. I believe that there are many paths to the same place, and that is a belief that there is a higher power, a belief that we are connected as a people. That there are values that transcend race or culture, that move us forward, and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively to take responsibility to make those values lived. --Barack Obama, April 2004

Obama may have "a deep faith", but it certainly does not appear to be a faith in what would be described as traditional Christianity. Mainstream Christians believe that Jesus taught there is only ONE path to God (not "many paths" as Obama suggests). According to the Gospel of John, Chapter 14, Verse 6 we read: "Jesus said to him, 'I am the way, and the truth, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but by me.'"

It's perhaps an unlikely theological position for someone who places his faith squarely at the feet of Jesus to take, saying essentially that all people of faith -- Christians, Jews, Muslims, animists, everyone -- know the same God. That depends, Obama says, on how (that) particular verse from the Gospel of John... is heard (emphasis added). --Cathleen Falsani, Obama: I have a deep faith, April 5, 2004

Apparently Obama 'hears' scriptures differently than mainstream Christians. He never explains that statement directly. Instead, he alludes to an explanation by talking about his mother, Ann Dunham, whom he described in this interview as a 'Christian'. "My mother, who I think had as much influence on my values as anybody, was not someone who wore her religion on her sleeve. We'd go to church for Easter. She wasn't a 'church lady'," Obama said.

In fact, Obama's mother wasn't a Christian at all according to Maxine Box, Ann Dunham's best friend in high school. "She touted herself as an atheist, and it was something she'd read about and could argue," said Maxine. "She was always challenging and arguing and comparing."

In his 1993 memoir, Dreams from My Father: A Story of Race and Inheritance, Obama describes his mother as "a lonely witness for secular humanism"... "My mother's confidence in needlepoint virtues depended on a faith I didn't possess, a faith that she would refuse to describe as religious; that, in fact, her experience told her was sacrilegious: a faith that rational, thoughtful people could shape their own destiny," he says in the book. --Cathleen Falsani, Obama: I have a deep faith, April 5, 2004

Apparently, it was Obama's mother who influenced Barack to believe that there "are many paths to the same place"...

My mother was a deeply spiritual person and would spend a lot of time talking about values and give me books about the world's religions and talk to me about them. Her view always was that underlying these religions was a common set of beliefs about how you treat other people and how you aspire to act, not just for yourself, but also for the greater good. --Barack Obama, April 2004

Obama then goes on to talk about his other 'religious' beliefs...

Alongside my own deep personal faith, I am a follower, as well, of our civic religion. I am a big believer in the separation of church and state. I am a big believer in our constitutional structure. I mean, I'm a law professor at the University of Chicago (when the article was written) teaching constitutional law. I am a great admirer of our founding charter and its resolve to prevent theocracies from forming and its resolve to prevent disruptive strains of fundamentalism from taking root in this country. --Barack Obama, April 2004

According to Cathleen Falsani, Barack Obama told her that he does not believe that anyone will go to hell. On the other hand, he's not sure he's going to heaven either. "I don't presume to have knowledge of what happens after I die," he said. Obama has also been quoted elsewhere as saying, "You know, my faith is one that admits some doubt".

So then, what are we to glean from all this? First, that faith includes doubt - an interesting concept. Can one infer then that "a deep faith" would logically include "deep doubts"?

Second, that you can call yourself a "Christian" and say that you are "rooted in the Christian tradition" without understanding the Bible or believing what it has to say.

Third, that Christianity is a belief system which teaches that there are many paths to "the same place" -- despite what it's founder, Jesus Christ, had to say.

Fourth, that Christianity is a belief system which says that "there is a higher power" -- unlike other religions.

Fifth, that Christianity is a belief system which says that "we are connected as a people" -- although I couldn't find that phrase in ten different translations of the Bible.

Sixth, that Christianity is inherently socialist; that is, a set of "values that... move us forward (ie, progressivism), and there's an obligation for all of us individually as well as collectively (ie, collectivism) to take responsibility to make those values lived."

Seventh, that an avowed atheist is really a "Christian" if they "go to church on Easter" and "spend a lot of time talking about values" and read "books about the world's religions".

Eighth, that a person is a "Christian" when they have a faith that believes rational, thoughtful people can "shape their own destiny".

Ninth, that alongside traditional religion, there is a "civic religion", the main tenet of which is "separation of church and state". The main scripture of this "civic religion" is the Constitution, and its main focus is to "prevent theocracies from forming" and to "prevent fundamentalism from taking root".

Tenth, that Christianity does not require a belief in heaven or hell -- especially hell, because no one is going there.

As a person who considers himself an evangelical Christian, I find Obama's belief system to be disturbing and even frightening. While it is clear that Christians everywhere hold many differing views on various topics and issues, Obama's understanding of Christianity is far-removed from the mainstream interpretation. When John Jay said "it is the duty... of our Christian nation to select and prefer Christians for their rulers", I don't think he had Barack Obama in mind.

MORE:
To learn more about Barack Obama, you can go to an excellent website that has loads of information that will both surprise and intrigue you. I'm sure that upon further review, you will find additional reasons to conclude that Obama should not become President of the United States. The website is called "The Obama File". Just click HERE.

UPDATE 1: The first item on this list "He Cannot Legally Be President" has been removed. As originally presented, the information would only have been correct if Barack Obama was born outside of the United States. There was some question as to where in fact Obama was born, and requests were made to see his birth certificate. At first, the Obama campaign could not produce his birth certificate. In June 2008, the 'Daily Kos', a left-wing blog produced a digital image of what it said was Obama's birth certificate. This image created more questions than answers. Some said the image may have been "Photoshopped" and demanded that a hard copy be made available. On August 21, 2008 Factcheck.org posted an article saying that their "staffers have now seen, touched, examined and photographed the original birth certificate". Their conclusion is that Obama was in fact born in the United States.

UPDATE 2: Under the heading "He is Easily Intimidated", I said that Barack Obama is unwilling to sit down in a one-on-one interview with Bill O'Reilly. Obama finally gave an interview to Bill O'Reilly on September 4, 2008. You can see the interview on YouTube in 4 parts: PART 1, PART 2, PART 3, PART 4. I thought that Obama's performance was admirable considering O'Reilly's tendency to "run over" people.