a.  Increased inexpensive threats. 

  - Cheap hand-held anti-aircraft missiles are rapidly proliferating; have been, for years.  Three decades ago, when still expensive & reasonably controlled, these hand-held anti-air missiles spelled the end of Soviet occupation of Afghanistan.  Today, F-15s, F-16s, & even titanium-bathtub A-10s, are actually increasingly vulnerable to decreasingly expensive hand-held anti-air missiles. Surrendering control of the air is not an option, not for winning a war.  

 - Current accounting for threats. Currently, our aircraft (fighters, bombers, cargo, etc) cannot fly low-altitude combat patterns without significant risk… including taking off for a mission, and coming down to land at the end of a mission. The trade-off? Increased air-to-ground distance, from high altitude, makes many specific combat situations more difficult to prosecute and/or survive.

  - Vulnerable, how? Our current fleet has few F-22s, relying mostly on aging 1970s-technology fighters.  Anti-aircraft defenses have matured over time.  F-15s, F-16s, & A-10s are metallic (with radar vulnerability) and unducted (with heat-seeking vulnerability). The vulnerabilities necessitate pilot distractions from mission, to actions needed merely to stay alive.  The flight environment is probably OK, for now, though certainly it’s not optimal.  Certainly, the environment will NOT be OK in another decade.

b.  But the F-22 (and F-35) would be essentially immune. 

  - Stealth technology operates against both radar and heat-seeking guidance systems, even if low-flying planes wisely employ simple countermeasures. (It’s foolish to forsake relatively inexpensive ‘countermeasures insurance’, just like it was foolish to forsake ‘insurance’ guns on 1^st-generation missile-armed jets!)

  - Even now, F-22’s & F-35’s non-metallic construction are inherent defenses combating ground fire … they don’t reflect well on radar-guidance systems! 

  - It seems that both the F-22 & F-35 have stealth-standard exhaust ducting that ‘cools’ exhaust enough to give heat-seeking missiles considerable trouble. 

Barack Obama, candidate for USA President, has decided to face a grave danger. Maybe he’s not fully aware of the danger and its implications. Maybe he is. Probably, the USA is not fully aware of the implications. The discussion hasn't started!

1. Significance.

2. Facts.

Regardless of anything related to Mr Obama’s own choosing, objective reality is that he is the son of an African Muslim. 

 - To Christian and secular ears, that last phrase elicits “So what?”. But not to Muslim ears. Islam holds that all descendants of a Muslim are also Muslim, without choice. (This bit of Islamic doctrine helps explain why countries, once Islam arrives, have almost never changed to any other religion, and never without significant bloodshed.)   

3. Implications.

a. Apostate, under death sentence, in the White House.

Mr Obama’s religious choice also gives the USA certain inseparable uncertainties. Every president faces certain assassination risks, with resulting Secret Service costs, and personal movement restrictions. We contain & guard our presidents and, to lesser extents, their family members and friends. USA citizens accept the cost, and presidents accept the restrictions on their freedoms of movement, since the president fills a singular elected office that is critical to the continuing functioning of the U.S. government. But … 

 - What is the cost, Secret Service and the rest, of protecting a president and his family from Islamic apostasy’s automatic death sentences?   

 - What would be the cost of Islamic terrorists successfully assassinating somebody close to a President Obama?   

 - What would be the international and propaganda cost of radical Islamic terrorists successfully carrying out the death sentence on a USA president and/or family member(s)?  

b. Secrets.

There is another option. A President Obama could chose (or could have already chosen) to be a secret Muslim. This could save his life, and the lives of his girls. But this option would still spell certain grave difficulties for the USA. The difficulties would be real, whether the difficulties resulted in actual problems or not, with an Obama presidency during a war against Islamic terrorists.   

 - Having non-public associations or actions, that one wishes to remain secret, usually will prevent a military individual or civil servant from obtaining (or keeping) a security clearance. Extortion has been proven a powerful tool against citizens entrusted with national security. Thus the White House should also have no secrets that ‘bad guys’ can leverage for extortion.

 - The War Of The Reconquest (France, Spain, & Portugal, 660s AD thru 1492 AD) holds many examples of how secret Muslims left varying levels of havoc within Iberian cities & countrysides.  Most cities in central Iberia changed hands many times. Often, the secret Muslims would be simply awaiting the arrival of the next Muslim army, then become active 5^th Columnists (albeit centuries before the term was coined).

Would a secret Muslim in the executive office … 

 - be a conflicted mind, and thus pose a low-level threat to the nation from within?   

 - be coerced or co-opted into actions harmful to the USA? 

4. Conclusion: 

Again, this post only raises a question.   The question's worth noting, and discussing, and resolving

 - It’s proven that Mr Obama, and his girls, are apostate Muslims, whether they (or we) would wish it to be, or not.   

 - What is NOT clearly proven is whether the automatic Islamic death sentences are a burden unwise for the USA to accept in the Oval Office.  Maybe it’s unwise. Maybe it’s actually wise. And, maybe it just doesn’t matter. But if it does matter, we’d better go into it with full awareness …   

 - The ‘death sentences’ point is worth a little discussion, since ‘we the people’ have to know what we’re getting with our vote, or else democracy turns into dictatorship…