Showing posts with label presidential. Show all posts
Showing posts with label presidential. Show all posts

Tuesday, October 21, 2008

Obama's Cousin Raila Odinga; Violence Against Christians Broke Out After Loss



Your Ad Here



Obama's Cousin, Raila Odinga:
Terror and Ethnic Cleansing in Kenya

Obama Actively Campaigned for Odinga








Obama's efforts to influence the election in Kenya has been relatively under-reported by the media in America. Specifically, Obama has lent his good name and fortune to the candidacy of Raila Odinga.

On one level this support is not surprising, as Obama made clear in his Dreams From My Father that he considered himself some sort of quasi-citizen of Africa--especially Kenya, his ancestral home.

And it should be noted that while Obama never really knew his father, he does know Odinga. And Odinga claims, rather credibly--but without written proof--that he is a relative of Obama. Both are from the Luo tribe of Kenya.

"Kenyan opposition leader Raila Odinga has said he is a cousin of US presidential hopeful Barack Obama.

Mr Odinga told the BBC's The World Today that Senator Obama's father was his maternal uncle."


Obama apparently denies the relationship. But that has not prevented him from supporting Raila Odinga.






ALSO at DBKP: Obama, Cousin Raila Odinga: Obama’s Foreign Policy Experience




Obama And Odinga


Obama has contributed about $950,000 to the Odinga campaign.

These monies were reported to have come from "The Friends Of Senator BO:

[Link to ODM document.]

World Net Daily reports: "According to several highly credible ex-ODM sources WND interviewed in Kenya, the $950,000 raised for Odinga's campaign came from a series of private meetings arranged for Odinga by Mark Lippert, a foreign policy adviser in Obama's U.S. Senate office. The meetings with top-dollar Obama fundraisers and donors took place during Odinga's 2006 trip to the U.S."

Obama was by no means the only recognizable figure on the list.

Dick Morris is there. So is Omar Khaddafi.

And although the list of donors on the internal document--purportedly issued as a memorandum by Orange Democratic Movement, Odinga's party--appears true, it has some oddities. Like, who is Spectre International and Associates?

Nevertheless the document is generally thought to be true, and it does follow a series of leaks of internal Orange Documents by certain former staffers.


So who is Odinga?

Well, that is troubling. Because this is a very unpleasant man.

He was jailed in 1982 in a failed coup. Although he is said not to be a Muslim he was initially set up in the Kenyan oil business by Khadaffi; he parlayed that into a lot of influence and money.

The Saudis were particularly helpful in advancing his "career". He also developed a lot of ties with the radical Muslim community, an alliance--allegedly brokered by the Saudis--that he hid from his own political party and its members. And for good reason: Odinga's election goal appears to have been to effectuate a Muslim coup of the government, although Muslims make up only 10% of this Christian nation.


According to Voice of America and the Evangelical Alliance of Kenya, on 8/29/07, Odinga signed a secret agreement (exposed 11/27) with Sheikh Abdullah Abdi of the National Muslim Leaders Forum (NAMLEF) in which he agreed to institute Islamic law in exchange for Abdi’s support (eakenya.org)–thereby potentially disenfranchising and curtailing the liberties of millions of Christian Kenyan women. Further, he promised that Muslims suspected of terrorism would be safe from extradition—thereby establishing a ‘safe haven’ for terrorists in Kenya.

After the public outcry, Odinga denied signing a secret agreement. Angry at Odinga’s apparent repudiation, a member of NAMLEF subsequently released the agreement to the press. Odinga then claimed the document was a forgery, but acknowledged a secret agreement had been signed in exchange for Muslim support. Finally, under constant pressure, Odinga released what he claimed was the actual document (“Real” MOU) a considerably watered down version of the original; but still anathema to many Christian groups. “In response to the revelations, The Evangelical Alliance of Kenya released a statement in which church leaders said Raila, in both MOUs, ‘comes across as a presumptive Muslim president bent on forcing Islamic law, religion and culture down the throats of the Kenyan people in total disregard of the Constitutionally guaranteed rights of freedom of worship and equal protection of the law’” (“Concerns Raised Over Alleged Vow To Enforce Islamic Law in Kenya” Christian Post 12/18/2007) To many westerners, the idea of imposing Sharia in a predominantly Christian country may have seemed fanciful. However, Kenya has had Sharia courts for family law (not criminal law)—called Khadi courts—since 1963.



Many liberals here in America doubt this memo exists--despite Odinga's initial lies and subsequent admission. But, the liberal analysis seems weak and strained. They argue that it would violate the Constitution. A rather stupid argument when the Memo itself calls for the repudiation of the Constitution. I mean, it is not like Odinga ever gave a rat's ass about legalisms in the past. For instance the document (https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/MOU_between_Ralia_Odinga_and_Muslims.pdf) provides:

b) Within 6 months re-write the Constitution of Kenya to recognize Shariah as the only true law sanctioned by the Holy Quran for Muslim declared regions.

c) With immediate effect dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenyan Muslim community.
g) Within one year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters.


But Odinga lost the election.

Initially it was credibly reported that Odinga lost by fraud perpetrated by the incumbent, a not particularly strong candidate because of his promise not to run again. (Has a candidate ever kept that promise?).

But then the government persisted in its allegation that Christians had been disenfranchised from certain voting districts. And while we will likely never know who was the winner of the election, we know who the losers were: Kenya, free speech, Christians and members of tribes other than the Luo and their allies.




As Market Watch reported:
For a few days both Nairobi and Kisumu were literally ablaze. Candidates who escaped the violence and who chose to run on parties other than the party Oginga was running on had to publicly step down when Oginga attended their rallies and publicly asked them to step down and support his party.






But that hardly touched upon the horror unleashed upon anyone identified as Christian.

In an aftermath government report, it was learned that many Odinga supporters had stocked up on machetes, gasoline, and other weapons commencing months before the election. They did not hesitate to use them.

While some surmise that the Muslim/Luo riots were a response to election tampering, the stockpiling of weapons supports the supposition that the attacks were planned all along, even if Odinga won. It was to be a Muslim assault on Kenyan society, with large elements of tribal infighting.

Allies of convenience.

Under any circumstances the rioters had all of the characteristics of Muslim expansionists that the world has seen so often in the past 30 years. Christians were pulled out of their cars and killed if they were of the wrong religion. Their homes and businesses were burned. Young girls were gang-raped in front of their parents and siblings. Men were 'circumcised' with machetes while captive crowds were forced to watch. Limbs were hacked off, both men and women were sexually mutilated in the streets and left to die.

It is estimated 1,500 died. The result was the exodus of 150,000 people from their homes. An attempt to purify Muslim/Luo areas and establish control.

The Mainstream Media still pretends this had nothing to do with religion.

Odinga is a pig.

As for Obama, we found an excellent summary by Zimbio on Free Republic.

It would be difficult to improve upon.

Clearly, Obama campaigned for someone who is corrupt, ruthless and has financial ties to terrorists.

More importantly, Obama campaigned for a candidate who had the stated objective of dismantling US & Kenyan government efforts to root out Al Queda and other terrorist organizations--organizations that had already caused the deaths of hundreds of Americans and Africans in embassy bombings.

Senator Obama’s actions—intentional or not—were in direct conflict with the efforts and interests of US national security.

I think this raises serious questions about the judgment, maturity and readiness of Senator Obama.


by pat
images:
* chicagoagainstObama
* theodoresworld
* dontvoteobama

Sources:
https://secure.wikileaks.org/leak/MOU_between_Ralia_Odinga_and_Muslims.pdf

http://community.marketwatch.com/groups/us-politics/topics/odinga-turn-kenya-muslim-state-cousin
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/africa/7176683.stm
http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2007/12/30/organizations-and-persons-funding-odm/
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78035
http://wnd.com/index.php?fa=PAGE.view&pageId=78059
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/obama-islam-and.html
http://us.mg2.mail.yahoo.com/dc/launch?.rand=1mobtkk75pdt2
http://www.genocidewatch.org/kenya.html
http://transatlanticconservative.blogspot.com/2008/01/mob-torched-christian-church-sheltering.html
http://www.zimbio.com/pilot?ID=xUWlueYnb0B&ZURL=%2FObamamania%2Fnews%2FxUWlueYnb0B%2FSenator%2BBarack%2BObama%2BKenya%2Bx3E%2BObama%2BOdinga&URL=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freerepubli c.com%2Ffocus%2Ff-news%2F2101183%2Fposts



Wednesday, October 15, 2008

Obama Debate Talking Points: Any Mention of Bill Ayers is Dishonorable



Your Ad Here


Obama Spin Cycle Begins Hours Ahead of Debate
Talking Points Already Issued to Media




All Mention of Bill Ayers is "Dishonorable"




The Obama campaign does what it does best: talk and issue talking points.

Obama Campaign Issues Talking Points Ahead of Debate


* This is John McCain's last chance to turn this race around and somehow convince the American people that his erratic response to this economic crisis doesn't disqualify him from being President.

* Just this weekend the weekend, John McCain vowed to "whip Obama's you-know-what" at the debate, and he's indicated that he'll be bringing up Bill Ayers to try to distract voters.

* So we know that Senator McCain will come ready to attack Barack Obama and bring his dishonorable campaign tactics to the debate stage.

Obama continues to lead on the economic crisis with a rescue plan for Main Street.

* Over the course of the campaign, Barack Obama has laid out a set of policies that will grow our middle class and strengthen our economy.

* But he knows we face an immediate economic emergency that requires urgent action - on top of the plans he's already laid out - to help workers and families and communities struggling right now.

* That's why Barack Obama is introducing a comprehensive four-part Rescue Plan for the Middle Class - to immediately to stabilize our financial system, provide relief to families and communities, and help struggling homeowners.

* This is a plan that can and should be implemented immediately.

* Obama has shown steady leadership during this crisis and offered concrete solutions to move the country forward - and his Rescue Plan for the Middle Class builds on the plans to strengthen the economy and rebuild the middle class that he's laid out over the course of this campaign.

* Already in this campaign, he's unveiled plans to give 95 percent of workers and their families a tax cut, eliminate income taxes for seniors making under $50,000, bring down the cost of health care for families and businesses; and create millions of new jobs by investing in the renewable energy sources.

* John McCain has been erratic and unsteady since this crisis began - staggering from position to position and trying to change the subject away from the economy by launching false character attacks.


One of the singular accomplishments of Barack Obama's campign has been to be able to set the terms of all debate and talk about Obama.

Anything outside of what the Obama campaign approves is "dishonorable" or "racist".

Which is immediately echoed in the compliant Mainstream Media.


by Mondo
hat tip: Crippy, Crippy's World
images: allposters




Monday, September 29, 2008

Barack Obama Supports Ahmadinejad Talks with No Pre-conditions



Your Ad Here




Obama and Meeting Ahmadinejad
Debate: Not for a Meeting without Pre-Conditions
Obama's Website: For a Meeting without Pre-Conditions





Is Barack Obama for or against meeting Iranian president, Mahmoud Ahmadinejad, without pre-conditions?

Depends on when Obama's asked the question.

During the first presidential debate, Obama certainly sounded like it was preposterous for John McCain to even suggest that Obama would meet the man who's vowed to "wipe Israel off the map" without pre-conditions.

From Marc Ambinder: In July of 2007, Barack Obama was asked by a video questioner: "Would you be willing to meet separately, without precondition, during the first year of your administration, in Washington or anywhere else, with the leaders of Iran, Syria, Venezuela, Cuba and North Korea?....."

"I would," he answered.

When Senator Hillary Clinton attacked Obama over that stance, Obama operative, David Axelrod started the backing and filling.

"What he meant was, as a government, he’d be willing and eager to initiate those kinds of talks, just as during the Cold War there were low-level discussions and mid-level discussions between us and the Soviet Union and so on. So he was not promising summits with all of those leaders."

A visit to barrackobama.com says the exact opposite, however.

"Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions."


From Yes, Obama supports direct presidential talks with Ahmadinejad:

In friday's debate, Obama continuously denied that he supported direct talks with president Mahmoud Ahmadinejad without preconditions. According to Obama's own website:
Diplomacy: Obama supports tough, direct presidential diplomacy with Iran without preconditions. Now is the time to pressure Iran directly to change their troubling behavior. Obama and Biden would offer the Iranian regime a choice. If Iran abandons its nuclear program and support for terrorism, we will offer incentives like membership in the World Trade Organization, economic investments, and a move toward normal diplomatic relations. If Iran continues its troubling behavior, we will step up our economic pressure and political isolation. Seeking this kind of comprehensive settlement with Iran is our best way to make progress.


It's no wonder that Obama runs from positions he took when he was trying to win the Democrat nomination--he had to appeal to the DailyKOS/Code Pink wing of the party. During the national election, he has to appeal to a much broader electorate.

But according to his own website, Obama would meet with Ahmadinejad without pre-conditions.

Ahmadinejad has repeatedly stated that he will "wipe Israel off the map" the moment Iran possesses the nuclear capability to do so. Some on the Left has said that Ahmadinejad did not really say that--that he was merely quoting the Ayatollah Khomeini. Google "myth of wiping Israel off the map" and over 57,000 results are returned.

At the same appearance in Tehran, Ahmadinejad also spoke of the "fairy tale of the Holocaust".

"Now in the West insulting the prophet is allowed, but questioning the Holocaust is considered a crime," he said, accusing Europaeans of not allowing "neutral scholars" to investigate "the truth about the fairy tale of Holocaust."

Iran's President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad today echoed his earlier threats to "wipe Israel off the map" by telling a mass demonstration in Tehran, commemorating the 27th anniversary of the Islamic Revolution, that Palestinians and "other nations" will remove Israel from the region...


Meanwhile, the crowd chanted, "Death to America," "Death of Israel," "Death to Denmark."

Ahmadinejad doesn't want to annihilate Israel; John McCain "mischaracterized" Obama's position.




Ahmadinejad did say he would "remove" Israel from the region--as many maps in the Arab world have already done.

It little wonder the Mainstream Media doesn't fact-check Barack Obama: first, he's their chosen candidate; second, pinning down a lawyer on exactly what he stands for or against is no easy task--even when you're trying.

Obama has said--more than once-- he would meet Ahmadinejad "without pre-conditions".
Regardless of what Obama said in the first presidential debate--on national TV, trying to appeal to a national audience--he's still insisting on his own website, that a no pre-conditions meeting is his position.


by Mondo
hat tip: rizzuto
image: Alex Wong; CNN