Obama's Friends, Mentors, and Advisors

Many may ask what does politics have to do with religion? That is a good question, and the answer should be nothing. However, a person’s religious affiliation could affect their political aspirations. Many politicians such as John Kennedy had to overcome religious backgrounds to get elected president. Today, Mitt Romney faces similar questions amongst Republicans, Conservatives, and Americans in general about being a Mormon. On the Democratic side, many pundits have portrayed Barrack Obama as a Muslim. Although these claims are false, even if they were true it should not affect a person’s vote. Most Mormons and Muslims are good people. If someone is a good candidate and person, it should not matter what their religious beliefs are. Maybe it is the media once again trying to make an issue out of nothing. If anyone is voting on a person based on their religious affiliation and background, then they are truly being discriminatory and a bigot. There is absolutely no difference between voting for someone based on religion, race, or gender because all are discriminatory. These are the worst reasons to vote for or to vote against a candidate. This once again shows the power that faith has on Americans, and how it can influence and even brainwash our behavior and personalities. This is just another example of how religion and faith based practices can divide and separate Americans.

The only time people should not vote for a candidate because of religious affiliation is if the religion has radically flawed morale values. For this reason, some believe the American public electing Barack Obama for President would be a mistake. Pastors at the church Obama attends have on occasion used racial and derogatory remarks. Although Obama has concealed his anger that is at times preached by his church, his wife has made an occasional anti-American comment. Obama preaches the opposite view point when his church over steps its bounds, but it is a mystery why he continued to affiliate himself with such a controversial church for over 20 years. That being said, it is easy to see how his Church has influenced his political views to be a liberal leader and to promote social programs to help disenfranchised Americans. So one can only hope he sincerely denounces the hateful message that his church has expressed on occasion. While some make the argument that electing a black President would go a long way to overcome racial barriers in this country, this is only true if Obama really has not become brainwashed into secretly believing the hateful message his church raises from time to time. Some argue that Obama should not be responsible for what others say. For instance, people cannot be held responsible for what a sibling says about issues. That is one hundred percent true. The key difference is that people cannot choose their siblings, but people can certainly choose who they associate with as friends or in terms of the faith they practice. Obama chose to be associated with a reverend that has at times been more than controversial with his sermons and beliefs. Obama’s association with the bigotry, racism, and conspiracy theories of Reverend Wright however, has had a negligible impact on his support. In fact, about two weeks after the story initially came out, his lead over Hillary Clinton reached double digits for the first time in national polls. This was very surprising to me and led me to believe that maybe I am exaggerating the effect religion has on most Americans. Whether right or wrong, I figured this story would crush him. Even more peculiar was the impact on Obama’s campaign a statement made about small town Pennsylvania citizens just a few weeks later. Obama said something to effect that people in Pennsylvania are “bitter about losing their jobs and cling to guns and religion to cope”. This statement had more of a negative impact on his campaign than his association with Reverend Wright. This was puzzling to me because I really did not think that his statement about the Pennsylvania citizens was all that offensive. It seems natural for people to feel bitter about losing their jobs. It is also natural for people to cling to something to get beyond the trauma of losing their jobs. It may not be guns or religion, but it could be anything like family or any hobby. The only reasonable explanation to the public’s differing reaction to these two incidents is that Obama made the latter statement whereas, he never actually said any of the words that Reverend Wright preaches. Thus, it appears Obama is personally attacking small town Pennsylvania citizens. It is amazing to me that the Reverend Wright situation is going to pass without any impact on Obama’s campaign. I definitely think it is okay to listen to controversial speakers and read controversial books to learn and gain a perspective on differing viewpoints. For example, I read “Mein Kampf” by Adolf Hitler, but I would never join or be associated with a neo Nazi organization. The difference is that Obama is not only a member of Reverend Wright’s church, but he has donated a lot of money to it. He had Reverend Wright baptize his children and marry him. This is a strong association to man that routinely promotes hate, bigotry, and conspiracy theories. This to me is damning evidence that Obama may not be what the millions of people around this country, which are intrigued and mesmerized by his presence, really think he is: A person that can unite this country. I think this once again illustrates the lack of intellect of Americans and how petty and simplistic they are to be offended by a harmless comment, but ignore hateful comments that are contributing to the polarization of this nation.

Lets not forget Obama's association with Minister Louis Farrakhan. Farrakhan is one of the most racists ministers. His comments and antisemitism towards Israel is simply alarming. How a person can associate himself with such radical person and following with no retributions is simply mind boggling. This not only shows poor judgment, but it is scary to think what Obama may actually be thinking behind his calm and cool demeanor. And then there is William Ayers and Bernardine Dohrn. When Obama was running for the Illinois State Senate in 1995 he met with these radical individuals to get their support to help him win his election. Ayers and Dohrn were part of the Weather Underground in the 1960s who protested against the Vietnam War. The Weather Underground took responsibility for 25 bombings against "war targets". Ayers and Dohrn avoided arrest until the 1980s when they turned themselves in for their involvement in the Greenwich Village bombing. No charges where ever brought against them because of an improper FBI surveillance. How can anyone associate themselves with such radical left wing human beings? There is no excuse for this, and it is just poor judgement we do not need in a President.

If any of this is not bad enough, his top economic advisor is Jim Johnson who was once the CEO of Frannie Mae. Frannie Mae is the now defunct government financial institution that held nearly a quarter of the countries mortgage notes. Frannie Mae and Freddie Mac were created and run by government liberals so every American could live the American Dream by becoming a home owner. It is the Democrats and their liberal philosophy to help middle class Americans live above their financial means that has greatly helped in our housing and financial market collapse and melt down. McCain tried to get regulation on Frannie and Freddie, but the Democrats thought McCain was trying to take down the working middle class dreams and refuted his attempt (It was refreshing to hear Governor Palin preach fiscal responsibility not only to the government, but the American people to live within our means). When Obama is President, Johnson will be his chief economist, is this what we want? Doesn't it make sense for Obama to have a chief economist that was a successful CEO, instead of one that help lead us into our worst financial crisis since the Great Depression? It awfully suspicious that he would stick with Johnson. Obama claims to be clean of lobbyist and kick backs. But this stinks of something that is terribly wrong. There is no question that Senator Dodd (Head of the Senate Finance Committee) and Obama have benefited from kick backs from both Freddie and Frannie. Sounds like Obama is no different than any Washington Politician.

The Democrats have fought back and claimed that John McCain has 19 lobbyist on his campaign staff. It should be pointed out that lobbying is not necessarily a bad function and it is protected under the first amendment. Most lobbyists get a bad rap basically because of all the corruption in Washington and politics in general. Lobbyists provide a function by petitioning the government over grievances. A lobbyist can protect people from losing their home because the government wants to tear it down to build a highway. Hence, lobbying does serve a valuable purpose to make sure altering viewpoints are heard. The problem with lobbyists only arises when their egos become too large and they become fanatical over a cause. When this happens, lobbyists begin to divide and separate Americans because they become unwilling to compromise to end disputes. They can buy off politicians to get their way (Just as Frannie and Freddie did with Dodd and Obama). Every American has benefited from a lobbyist, they serve more good than bad. Joe Biden's son was lobbyist, this does not make him a bad person. The bottom line is this: I would take 19 good lobbyist over one corrupt one that should be in prison for his role in the financial melt down.

Democrats argue that McCain has had his dealings with many so called criminals in his day. If you work in Congress as long a McCain, it is unfortunate but there will be associations with some corrupt individuals. The difference between McCain's and Obama's association with criminals is evident. When McCain dealt with these individuals, they were not known criminals at the time. As soon as their corrupt activity was revealed, McCain severed the relationship. Meanwhile, Obama chose to associate himself with individuals that promote racism, hate, and bigotry on a daily basis his entire life. He also chose to associate with radical individuals who have admitted to being involved in and promoting bombings in the 1960s that killed many. There is nothing wrong for us to be friends with our neighbors. However, our character and judgment are tested once we find out that one neighbor is a racist, pedophile, adulteress, or a follower of any other morally wrong activity. Do we choose to continue to associate with them or do we choose to what is right and disassociate with them? Do you do what McCain does and disassociates himself with the individual or do you do what Obama does and embraces the individual? To be President you have to have good judgement and Obama clearly does not.