Obama Funded Thug Raila Odinga

It turns out that The One has raised almost a million dollars for his terrorist cousin Raila Odinga, so he could institute sharia law in Kenya.

Here’s what Odinga has in store for the people of Kenya.

Now WND has obtained a copy of Odinga’s agreement with Sheik Abdullahi Abdi, the chairman of the National Muslim Leaders Forum, that outlined plans, among other things, for wide-ranging attacks on Christians.

{snip}

In the document signed by Odinga and the chairman of the National Muslims Leaders Forum, the Muslims promised to “enable and assist ODM and The Candidate win the National Elections and the Presidency of the Republic of Kenya.”

The Muslims agreed to “issue a joint statement declaring that all Muslims should support and vote for Raila Amollo Odinga and ODM” and “engage in active campaigns for Raila Amollo Odinga and ODM through the Republic and impress upon Muslims, publicly and emphatically, the requirement to vote for ODM and Raila Amollo Odinga.”

In return, Odinga agreed to give “the Council of Islamic leaders … an oversight role to monitor activities of ALL (emphasis in original) other religions and any applications for religious activities and institutions will require their approval. They shall have the right to deny approval to cults and other evil practices.”

The plan apparently was to turn regions of Kenya, which has long been a Christian-majority nation, into Islamic states.

In addition to promising to re-write the Kenyan constitution and enshrine Islamic Shariah law, Odinga promised to immediately “dismiss the Commissioner of Police who has allowed himself to be used by heathens and Zionists to oppress the Kenya Muslim community.”

Further, Muslims suspected of terrorism, even international terrorism, were to be provided new protections, with Odinga’s promise to: “Disband the imperialist Anti-Terror Police Unit (ATPU) that was set up for the sole purpose of terrorizing, harassing, intimidating and deporting innocent Kenyan Muslims to Guantanamo Bay.”

Further, Odinga agreed, “No Muslim residing in Kenya whether a citizen, visitor or relative of any of the above shall be subjected to any process involving the laws of a foreign country and in particular any Muslim arrested for or suspected of Terrorism or any other International crime shall only be tried within the boarders (sic) of Kenya. …”

The power and influence of Islam was to be further extended with Odinga’s promise to “within 1 year facilitate the establishment of a Shariah court in every Kenya divisional headquarters” and to “popularize Islam, the only true religion … by ordering every primary school in Kenya in the regions to conduct daily Madrassa class.”

Strict Islamic Shariah law was to be enforced with immediate crackdowns on alcohol, pork and other “haram” products and practices, including a ban “on women’s public dressing styles that are considered immoral and offensive to the Muslim faith in the Muslim regions of the Coastal and Northeastern regions.”

You can see the actual agreement with Raila Odinga and the Kenya’s Muslim minority leaders here.

Now can any of you explain to me what kind of so-called American “Christian” person would support a person wanting to set up Sharia law?

Advertisements

2 responses to “Obama Funded Thug Raila Odinga

  1. An illustration of that gap came just two weeks ago, when Palin’s church, the Wasilla Bible Church, gave its pulpit over to a figure viewed with deep hostility by many Jewish organizations: David Brickner, the founder of Jews for Jesus.

    Palin’s pastor, Larry Kroon, introduced Brickner on Aug. 17, according to a transcript of the sermon on the church’s website.

    “He’s a leader of Jews for Jesus, a ministry that is out on the leading edge in a pressing, demanding area of witnessing and evangelism,” Kroon said.

    Brickner then explained that Jesus and his disciples were themselves Jewish.

    “The Jewish community, in particular, has a difficult time understanding this reality,” he said.

    Brickner’s mission has drawn wide criticism from the organized Jewish community, and the Anti-Defamation League accused them in a report of “targeting Jews for conversion with subterfuge and deception.”

    Brickner also described terrorist attacks on Israelis as God’s “judgment of unbelief” of Jews who haven’t embraced Christianity.

  2. Arizona Sen. John McCain, the early front-runner for the 2008 Republican presidential nomination, had a potential John Connally/Mike Dukakis/John Kerry moment earlier this month, and hardly anyone seems to have noticed.

    What McCain did was make some disturbing informal remarks to the Israeli daily Haaretz – informal only in the sense that as a still undeclared candidate, his comments, as Haaretz’s Amir Oren wrote, “reflect the personal opinion of a senior and influential figure in the area of defense policy in the United States Senate, rather than an attempt to formulate policy guidelines for his administration.”

    McCain told Haaretz that as president, he would “micromanage” U.S. policy toward Israel and the Palestinians and would dispatch “the smartest guy I know” to the region, presumably to jump-start a new push for a comprehensive accord.

    Asked who that “smartest guy” might be, McCain responded: “Brent Scowcroft, or James Baker, though I know that you in Israel don’t like Baker.”

    McCain foresaw “concessions and sacrifices by both sides” and indicated that Israel would be expected to “Defend itself and keep evacuating.” Asked whether that meant “movement toward the June 4, 1967 armistice lines, with minor modifications,” McCain, reported Haaretz, “nodded in the affirmative.”

    McCain’s statements are jarring not only because they reflect the view, long championed by the State Department and both the moderate and liberal wings of the Democratic party, that the U.S. can somehow “micromanage” a fair and equitable Mideast peace (code for unilateral Israeli concessions, since the Palestinians have nothing concrete to concede), but as well for the almost cavalier dismissal of concerns about an interlocutor on the order of a James Baker.

    (McCain’s mention of Scowcroft, whose Mideast views and chilly attitude toward Israel are indistinguishable from those usually attributed to Baker, is equally instructive and should serve as one more caveat for McCain supporters in the pro-Israel community.)

    Judging from the Mideast-related mishaps of previous high-profile presidential wannabes, the reaction to McCain’s comments would have been far less muted had he made them later in the campaign cycle (the first presidential primaries are still some 20 months away and McCain, as noted by Amir Oren, hasn’t officially declared his candidacy). Time will tell whether his remarks in Haaretz were an aberration or a harbinger.

    McCain’s reference to James Baker was especially curious given the flurry of criticism that descended on John Kerry during the 2004 presidential campaign when the Massachusetts senator told the Council on Foreign Relations that if elected president he would appoint the “uniquely qualified” Jimmy Carter, James Baker or Bill Clinton as his Middle East peace envoy.

    Kerry only made things worse when he claimed afterward – despite evidence to the contrary in the “as prepared for delivery” version of the speech posted on his own website – that the offending passage had been inserted into the speech at the last minute by staffers.

    Michael Dukakis was another candidate who stumbled badly when attempting to lay out a Mideast policy. Speaking at a forum sponsored by the Conference of Presidents of Major American Jewish Organizations in April 1988, the Democratic Massachusetts governor appeared unfamiliar with basic Israeli history and unsure of where he stood on a variety of important issues. Many in the audience of Jewish leaders pronounced themselves decidedly unimpressed, and the next day’s Daily News article on the meeting was headlined “Duke is milk and honey, and waffle.”

    Kerry and Dukakis both went on to win their party’s nomination, though both had their White House hopes dashed by men named George Bush. John Connally didn’t even come close. The Democrat-turned-Republican former Texas governor gave a speech in October 1979 to the Washington Press Club in which he demanded that Israel halt what he called its “creeping annexation of the West Bank” and return all territory captured in 1967.
    Connally was lambasted by conservatives and liberals alike (times certainly have changed), and his once promising presidential campaign quickly withered.

    Within days of Connally’s speech, two prominent Jewish members of the Connally campaign committee quit and the New York Republican Committee rescinded an invitation for Connally to address its Lincoln Day event. Connally campaign chair Winton Blount called the fallout over the speech “devastating.”

    Wrote New York Times columnist William Safire: “After John Connally’s speech last week, supporters of Israel – along with many others concerned with noisy U.S. weakness in the face of Soviet military and Arab economic threats – made a reassessment of Ronald Reagan and decided he looked ten years younger.”

    By the time Connally dropped out of the primaries, he’d spent $11 million and won the support of exactly one Republican convention delegate.

Leave a Reply

Please log in using one of these methods to post your comment:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s