No doubt, the upcoming election will be a history making landmark. Lines are drawn, sides taken, and the heat of emotions on both sides is at fever pitch. Of course, to some degree that is true of all presidential elections in the last week before the election.

No matter what the outcome, tradition will be broken. Either we will have our first Arab American (or African American) president, or our first female Vice President. The signs of the old guard wearing down are showing.

And like almost every election, Chicken Little has gotten into the act. If you pick one camp or the other, both are saying the world will come to an end if the other candidate wins. At this point in our history, it is probably safe to say that we will survive whatever result occurs. What remains to be seen is how we survive it.

Even so, for the first time, we are confronted with a candidate who is willing to admit his belief that America is “parochial” and acknowledge his open minded attitude to countries and organizations which most Americans have come to view as national enemies, if not in deed, in thought.

In the past campaigns, candidates on either side vied for being viewed as “the most American”. The race was always about being seen as the candidate the most closely tied to our traditional national values.

Obama, while promising change, appears to espouse a kind of change most Americans are not perhaps ready to weather. No doubt, most of Obama’s supporters hold high hopes that the change he envisions will result in a better quality of life in this country. Few would argue with that as a worthwhile goal, even though the debate rages between two sides about the proper path to that end.

Underneath the eloquent prose of his speeches, his actions and words suggest that he perceives change as being grounded in divorcing from traditional pride in our nation to embracing more open multicultural view, even at the cost of our cherished history and commitment to our allegiance to our country .

It is a change that many Americans may not be ready to make. Whether good or bad, only time will tell. But commitment to our nation has a long and honored place in our history. Allegiance to our nation is found not only in our Constitution, but it is woven through our legal system as well.

Consider the fact that allegiance to America first is so highly valued that any person who steps outside the bounds of national loyalty is guilty of treason. The United States Code defines it as follows in 18 USC § 2381 provides:

Whoever, owing allegiance to the United States, levies war against them or adheres to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort within the United States or elsewhere, is guilty of treason and shall suffer death, or shall be imprisoned not less than five years and fined under this title but not less than $10,000; and shall be incapable of holding any office under the United States.

There are many of Obama’s detractors who would argue he has already overstepped that boundary. His loyalty and dedication to what most call “the American way” has been seriously questioned. The debate arises out of what appear to be Obama’s very strong ties to activists and multi-nationals who view current American policy as abhorrent.

Much furor has surrounded an event in 2003, and which was the subject of a report by the Los Angeles Times, known for its active support of Obama.

In 2003, Obama attended a farewell party for Rashid Khalidi, previously a spokesman and supporter for terrorist Yasser Arafat. The fete was sponsored by the Arab American Action Network (AAAN), and was attended by such noteworthy participants as former Weatherman Bill Ayers and his wife, Bernadette Dorn. Testimonials, including Obama’s, were heard all around for the blatantly Anti-Semitic Khalidi. Khalidi was transferring to Columbia University to head up their Mid Eastern Studies department, which over time has come to be known for its outspoken Anti Semitic sentiments.

Both Ayers and Obama had served together as board members of the Woods Fund, which gave a substantial grant during their tenure to the AAAN an organization which believes that Israel is illegitimately constituted, and which has advocated terrorism in response.

During Obama’s accolade of the staunchly Anti Semitic Khalidi, he noted that he had learned much while socializing with Khalidi and his wife, in ways that had caused him to challenge his “biases”. The Times openly acknowledged this fact.

The gathering was infused with much Anti-Israeli sentiment, including labeling the Israeli’s “terrorists”. A poem was read by a youthful Palestinian supporter ending with the warning that until Palestine was liberated and its lands restored “there would never be peace.”

Since his Weatherman days, Ayers has publicly been a staunch supporter of Palestinian liberation, and a harsh critic of US Mid-East policy, particularly support of Israel.

Khalidi, Obama’s professed mentor, has openly advised that election to high office in the United States requires a professed commitment to support of Israel.

While Obama ostensibly claims support for Israel publicly, how ardent can that espoused support be if he maintains close ties to academics and activists so fervently committed to the liberation of Palestine? No matter how often he speaks idealistically of finding “common ground” none exists between those two countries, and indeed, the very nature of their grievances puts resolution of the entire dispute into an” either/or” result.

The question is not whether Israel or Palestine is right. The question is whether those seeking to promote Palestinian liberation have by political action and military aggression have become “enemies” of the US, and whether Obama, then and now provides aid and comfort to those whose past actions demonstrate open hostility to US policy.

Beyond that, the Los Angeles Times is in possession of a video tape of Obama’s remarks at the Khalidi gathering which they have refused to release. The Times has confirmed the existence of the tape, and its possession of it. Yet, despite repeated requests, The Times has given numerous vague reasons why it will not be released.

An unconfirmed viewer of the video has stated that Obama “ congratulates Khalidi for his work saying ‘Israel has no God-given right to occupy Palestine’ plus there’s been “genocide against the Palestinian people by Israelis.”

No one knows for sure the accuracy of this report, but it is quite probable that the quote is valid in some form, given the tenor of the event, and the views of those attending it, which even the Los Angeles Times concedes set the tone of the gathering.

Ayers background includes an acknowledged participation in the bombings of the US Capitol and Pentagon during the 1970’s. While never convicted of his participation in the attacks, as late as 2001, Ayer’s was quoted in the New York Times as saying “I don't regret setting bombs. I feel we didn't do enough.”

Customarily, it has been fairly easy to define an “enemy” of sovereignty once military force has been used against it. How Ayer’s actions and beliefs could be construed as anything other than being an enemy of the United States defies logic. Whether he remains one is a question for another day.

Since inception of the campaign, it appears that the contact between Ayers and Obama has been limited, and Ayers has not endorsed Obama in the campaign. Supporters of Obama downplay the former ties and dismiss them as irrelevant, noting that Obama condemns violence in any form.

Standing alone, Obama’s ties to Ayers at least raise questions that have not been fully answered about Obama’s true loyalties. And these past ties could perhaps be written off as too attenuated and distanced from the present, if they had not been resurrected by Obama himself.

Obama has openly acknowledged that he felt justified in not placing his hand over his heart during the playing of the National Anthem at a recent political gathering, defending his position by stating:

As I've said about the flag pin, I don't want to be perceived as taking sides,' Obama said. 'There are a lot of people in the world to whom the American flag is a symbol of oppression.”

Really, the bigger question is not whether Obama has allegiances stronger than those he holds for America, but whether we should have to ask the question at all.

For the first time in modern history, we are faced with the potential election of a candidate who is willing to put the interests of other nations, and peoples ahead of those of the American people. No past candidates have endured a campaign without being the object of charges of unfitness for the Presidency, but those challenges have never before been rooted in a lack of perceived loyalty to the country they seek to lead.

Obama’s supporters might call his abandonment of nationalism positive change, but it flies in the face of what we have come to expect in terms of loyalty to our citizens, our nation, and our values.

A political campaign is a courtship of sorts. The suitor is always on his best behavior while trying to win the affections of the object of his desire. Later, his conquest made, he often drops the seductive pretense.

Like the victorious suitor, will Obama drop the pretense and become more open about his preference to abdicate traditional values in favor of something he considers less provincial?

If elected, and unfettered by the need to win over voters, will he go so far as to give “aid and comfort” to nations and groups which have traditionally been considered “enemies” of US policies and values?

Only history and the passage of time will label him a traitor, or misguided and destructive idealist.