OBAMA WOULDN'T QUALIFY FOR A SECURITY CLEARANCE

Submitted by Sofa Sogood (United States), Mar 29, 2008 at 23:07

This is quite a point, and should be given more attention. Thank you for bringing it up.

Has there ever been a Presidential candidate who has been associated with any group or organization (especially for as long as 20 years!) that was expressly Anti-American -- or expressed their "criticism" of the government in paranoid accusations of criminal activities such as disseminating AIDS to destroy a certain group of citizens, or whose leader outrightly made and distributed speeches stating that the whole country, including the government, deserved and brought upon itself a vicious attack against its citizens and land -- or called upon God in a prayer to "Damn" America? And then recorded that speech to a DVD for distribution?

That church gave a Lifetime Award to Farrakhan. That church gave support to Ghaddafi -- an enemy of the U.S. Obama's donations helped pay for the moral support of the likes of Ghaddafi, and the promotion of those ideas.

There wouldn't be anything wrong or at all dangerous (quite the opposite) in belonging to a group which simply criticized the country's history of racism, with the intent of improving the country. But that shouldn't be confused with or compared to "Damning" America, and promoting the hatred of white people with wild paranoid ideas.

All we have, as voters, is Obama's "words" that he "disagrees" with Rev. Wright's opinions.

Is that enough? His words? And what some "believe" to be his "sincerity?"

His "actions" have shown that, for whatever his "reasons," he attended that church for 20 years.

His "actions" have shown that he has raised his children under the influence of the ideas of that church.

Many apologizers for Obama have used the explanation that he only joined this church so that he could become believable and acceptable as a leader of the African-American grass roots community in Chicago. Yet he very recently called Rev. Wright his "mentor."

Without going into whether this church is representative of the majority of Chicago's African-Americans, my question is -- how do they claim to know what he really believes in or not? Wouldn't the best judge of that not be his words or excuses, but his actions? We're talking about President here and now, not community leader.

In the "Guidelines" for access to classified information, under "Alliegance to the United States" there doesn't seem to be anything that discusses long-term association with groups that use hate speech or that disseminate bad wishes or prayers, such as the Damning of America. It seems to be limited to sabotage, espionage, treason, terrorism or sedition -- which seems inadequate to me. It needs to be expanded, but I wonder if a member of a group, such as the Black Panthers, or a group which has given support to enemies of the U.S. such as Ghaddafi, who though at present do nothing that is specifically illegal, would be given a security clearance. I hope not.

Would those who grant security clearances accept the "word" of a member of one of these groups, that he "doesn't agree" with what he had been listening to for 20 years, and stayed in the church because the leader is just like an Old Uncle? Would those "words" be enough for eligibility?

Democrat or Republican, left or right, anti-Iraq war or not, what possesses Americans to accept this as an excuse for a man who proposes to become our President who will hold all the keys to our and our children's future security and well-being?

Shame on the Democratic Party for jumping on a mindless bandwagon they believe can bring them into power, for their blindness, and for supporting this outrage against the security of the American People.

---

Note: Opinions expressed in comments are those of the authors alone and not necessarily those of Daniel Pipes. Original writing only, please. Comments are screened and in some cases edited before posting. Reasoned disagreement is welcome but not comments that are scurrilous, off-topic, commercial, disparaging religions, or otherwise inappropriate. For complete regulations, see the "Guidelines for Reader Comments".