BooksFilmandMusic

by Daniel Mallock

As the presidential election quickly approaches Americans are hungry for all the information they can get on the candidates. Americans know that this election held during wartime and in the midst of an astounding national financial crisis is the most important in recent memory. A trip to Kenya by Mr. Obama in 2006 sheds important light on both Mr. Obama’s predilections and the nature of the conflict that we are in against political expansionist Islam. Mr. Obama’s active involvement in the presidential elections of Kenya during his trip have an appearance of impropriety about them, but more importantly his active support for the opposition candidate Mr. Odinga is instructive. A controversial document signed by Mr. Odinga on August 29, 2006 which promised the imposition of sharia law (Islamic law) across Kenya tells us a great deal about Mr. Obama.

Mr. Obama supported Mr. Odinga, even appearing at campaign rallies with him. If the document is legitimate and there is strong reason to believe that it is Mr. Odinga supports sharia law.

We shall examine Mr. Obama’s trip to Kenya, his association with Mr. Odinga, and examine the pros and cons of the legitimacy of this document in light of Islamic doctrine. Mr. Obama’s associations and judgment are the central controversy of the current presidential election here in the United States. We must learn as much as we can about Mr. Obama’s associations because through them we can get an accurate understanding of Mr. Obama himself.

We are known through our associations and our accomplishments. Whom we choose to associate with indicates the state of our judgment. Mr. Obama’s associations indicates extremely poor judgment and a preference for extremism. His involvement with Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac as the second highest recipient of donations from those failed and corrupt institutions and his direct approval of and involvement with the CEOs of these institutions further brings his capacity for reasonable judgment into question. These men and these institutions are at the center of the failure of the American financial sector. It is the responsibility of the electorate to educate themselves on the candidates and the issues. With this responsibility in mind, the following is presented for your review.

Late in August, 2006, as part of a week long tour of several African nations Barack Obama visited the country of his father’s birth, Kenya. Arriving as a famous American politician and renowned son of Kenya Obama toured the country during their presidential election railing against government corruption. The sitting president, Mr. Kibaki, did not take this approach very favorably. Obama’s involvement in Kenyan politics became quite clear when he appeared at campaign events with the opposition candidate Mr. Odinga. A fellow member of Obama’s own ethnic group/Luo tribe Obama, according to the Chicago Tribune of August 29, 2006, “Obama appeared with opposition leader Raila Odinga — a Luo running for president — at stops on Saturday in his father’s native district..” Mr. Kibaki’s spokesman Alfred Mutua put a decidedly negative spin on the proceedings suggesting that visiting American politician Barack Obama was nothing more than a “stooge” and that Mr. Odinga was using Obama as “his puppet” (see Chicago Tribune, above). While it seems somewhat unseemly and ethically questionable for an American Senator to travel to another country and dive so deeply into their presidential politics, that is not the core of the issue here. (Read the oath of office here. Mr. Obama must be given credit for understanding the poltical climate in Kenya for, as his foreign policy advisor, Susan Rice said in an interview with German magazine Spiegel, “He bows to nobody in his understanding of this world.” (Interview, Susan E. Rice, Speigel, July 21, 2008) His decision to actively support the Sharia candidate Mr. Odinga could not then have been anything but purposeful and based upon the situation in Kenya, and most importantly, Mr. Odinga’s positions.

Kenya is gripped by political, religious, and ethnic violence. In early January of this year, 2008, “In broad daylight, a crowd of Kenyans set a church filled with hundreds of terrified families on fire and listened to their screams as flames engulfed them.” Such events are almost beyond our comprehension. But they continue to happen. (Read the report here. Further commentary here.) According to the CIA FactBook only 10% of the population of Kenya is Muslim. This is important because Mr. Odinga, the very same candidate that Mr. Obama actively supported during his visit to Kenya signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the leaders of the “Muslim Leaders Forum” (NAMLEF) that promised upon his presidential victory that Sharia law would be implemented across the country within one year. This would require a complete reshaping of the country and would likely spark massive conflicts and violence as Kenya is a country in which 90% of the population is non-Muslim. The Factbook (read it here states that, “KIBAKI’s reelection in December 2007 brought charges of vote rigging from ODM candidate Raila ODINGA and unleashed two months of violence in which as many as 1,500 people died. UN-sponsored talks in late February produced a power sharing accord bringing ODINGA into the government in the restored position of prime minister.” The situation in Kenya is highly volatile. Why, other than his father’s connection to that country would Obama concern himself with Kenya and Odinga? And what of this memorandum of understanding?

Some weeks back during an interview with George Stephanopolous, Mr. Obama had a controversial slip of the tongue in which he referenced, “my Muslim faith” (available here). It may have been something more, we may never know - hopefully we shall never know. But if Mr. Obama does win the election, his association with Islam is something that must be understood. Ideally, we will all do our homework prior to the election so that we can make the best decision possible for the future of our country. (Robert Spencer has comments on Obama and his connections to Islam here.) However, it would appear that Islamists prefer Mr. Obama over Mr. McCain mainly on account of his past connections with Islam, “Iran’s leadership has expressed ‘great pleasure’ at the prospect of a Barack Obama victory in November, according to Menashe Amir, the Iranian-born head of Radio Israel’s Persian language service.” (See column at Newsmax here.) One could readily dismiss such statements as propaganda or slick opposition “spin”, but when seen in light of Obama’s trip to Kenya and his active support of Mr. Odinga concerned Americans must be as clear as they can on this matter. It should give any American pause that the enemies of our country support Mr. Obama over McCain. ““One of the Iranian religious leaders said if Obama will enter the White House, then Islam will conquer the heart of the American nation.” (See Robert Spencer’s comments on this issue here.) There is no longer any question that Mr. Obama was at one time a practicing Muslim. (See Daniel Pipes on this issue here.) His support of Mr. Odinga in Kenya could become more understandable in light of this understanding of his background.

Despite Mr. Obama’s active campaign support with his fiery rhetoric and impressive “American statesman abroad” approach, Mr. Odinga lost the election. Immediately claiming fraud his supporters went on riotous rampages in Nairobi and other parts of the country killing hundreds. But why would churches be targeted? As a mainly Christian country, Kenyan society is founded upon churches. Islamists seek to replace churches and other institutions with Sharia and Islamic law - attacking churches is part of the gameplan to undermine the country. Now, Mr. Odinga and his erstwhile rival Mr. Kibaki have a power-sharing arrangement in which Mr. Odinga is the Prime Minister and Mr. Kibaki the President.

While Mr. Obama was visiting Kenya (dated August 29, 2007) Mr. Odinga signed a Memorandum of Understanding with the National Muslim Leaders Forum of Kenya. Mr Odinga promised in this Memorandum, among other things, the rewriting of the national constitution (within 6 months) to recognize sharia as the only true law for “Muslim declared regions”; “within 1 year facilitate the establishment of a sharia court in every Kenyan divisional headquarters”; popularize Islam, the only true religion, in the Coast and North Eastern Regions by ordering every primary school in Kenya to in the Regions to conduct daily Madrassa classes.” There is more of course, and you can see the document here. The key point is that Mr. Odinga signed a Memorandum of Understanding with Muslim leaders promising to bring sharia law to Kenya. This could only mean intense internal strife in a country of predominant Christian population. Why would Barack Obama support a political candidate in Kenya, or anywhere else, who supported sharia law?

Many writers and analysts have speculated on this issue, and one can only wonder at the answer. But doesn’t this support of a doctrine of absolutism, misogyny, cruelty, and total intolerance for non-Muslims completely exclude Mr. Obama from any national leadership position in the United States? Doesn’t Mr. Obama’s support of a Kenyan politician who supports sharia law make him unfit to lead a democracy anywhere?

Daniel Pipes, one of the leading scholars of political Islam in the United States says that “The hardest thing for Westerners to understand is not that a war with militant Islam is underway but that the nature of the enemy’s ultimate goal. That goal is to apply the Islamic law (the Shari‘a) globally. In U.S. terms, it intends to replace the Constitution with the Qur’an.” (Read the article here.)

If Mr. Pipes is accurate, and he is, how can we consider Mr. Obama - a supporter of Sharia law through his support of Mr. Odinga in Kenya- as a viable and desirable candidate for President? Imposition of sharia law is the goal of Islamist terrorism. The terrorists themselves are quite clear on this point. An AlQaeda training manual found in a terrorist’s house in Manchester, England is clear:

PRESENTATION
To those champions who avowed the truth day and night……And wrote with their blood and sufferings these phrases…

-*-The confrontation that we are calling for with the apostate regimes does not know Socratic debates…,Platonic ideals…, nor Aristotelian diplomacy. But it knows the dialogue of bullets, the ideals of assassination, bombing, and destruction, and the diplomacy of the cannon and machine-gun.

***… Islamic governments have never and will never be established through peaceful solutions and cooperative councils.

They are established as they [always] have been
by pen and gun
by word and bullet
by tongue and teeth

Read the Manual here.

There are three kinds of Jihad according to Islamic doctrine: by the sword, by the tongue, and by money. Jihad is the obligation of all Muslims. (Read about the Islamic doctrine of Jihad here.

Back in Kenya in November of last year a great controversy about Mr. Odinga’s Memorandum erupted.

There is some doubt as to the veracity of the Odinga/Muslim agreement linked above. According to the BBC,

“Muslim leaders decided to make the pact public after a document circulated on the internet claimed that Mr Odinga’s ODM had pledged to introduce Sharia in parts of the country where Muslims are in the majority.

‘There was a fear that Muslims will force their faith on other people, Islam does not allow suppression of other religions and we will be the last to advocate for this,’ said Abdullahi Abdi of the National Muslim Leaders Forum.

Instead the memorandum of understanding, signed in August, states that Mr Odinga has pledged to defend Muslims against harassment and victimisation by state security forces who claim to be fighting terrorism.”

Read the BBC article, here.

There is a serious contradiction here. While the document on the internet is quite specific about sharia law in Kenya should Odinga win, including a timetable for it’s implementation, the National Muslim Leaders Forum suggest in the BBC article that the extant document is a fraud and the real one is far less offensive to the majority of Kenyans who happen to be non-Muslim. How can we determine the truth, how can this contradiction be resolved?

Other websites have suggested the same, that the Odinga document is a fraud and that, according to one site, “…it doesn’t take very advanced math, wikipedia or googling skills to recognize that risking up to 80% of the vote (Kenya’s Christian majority) to cater to a minority of 10% (its Muslims) doesn’t add up and both Raila Odinga and NAMELEF publicly declared the document a forgery.” (Source, here.) But there is a problem here of omission: when were these denials issued? Had Odinga won the election would we ever have heard of this Memorandum at all? It is unlikely. Interestingly, the Muslim Council of Kenya originally denied that any Memorandum existed at all. After calls from Christian leaders in Kenya to release the document and respond to allegations raised by the leaked version that the Muslim community in Kenya was working with presidential candidate Odinga to bring Sharia to the country,

Sheikh Abdullahi Abdi of Namlef said, “There was a fear that Muslims will force their faith on other people, Islam does not allow suppression of other religions and we will be the last to advocate for this,” reports the BBC.

(Source, ChristianToday.com)

In Islamic doctrine a Muslim is not obligated to be truthful with a non-Muslim, a kafir. The truth is reserved for other Muslims. This is called “Taqiyya”, the doctrine of deception. If deception advances the cause of Islam it is considered acceptable and honorable.

Deceit is part of Islamic war against the kafirs.
Bukhari 4,52,267 Mohammed: “The king of Persia will be destroyed, and no one shall assume his throne. Caesar will certainly be destroyed and no Caesar will follow him; his coffers will be spent in Allah’s cause [jihad].” Mohammed cried out, “Jihad is deceit.”

Read more about the “Doctrine of Deceit” here. And here.

The Sheikh’s comments above that “Islam does not allow the suppression of other religions” is contrary to 1400 years of violent expansion and suppression. For example, Saudi Arabia, an Islamic state under sharia law, according to the US Department of State is described as follows:

The country is ruled by a monarchy with a legal system based on Islamic law (Shari’a). The Government does not provide legal protection for freedom of religion, and such protection does not exist in practice. Islam is the official religion, and the law requires that all citizens be Muslims. The Government prohibits the public practice of non-Muslim religions. The Government recognizes the right of non-Muslims to worship in private; however, it does not always respect this right in practice and does not define this right in law.

Section II. Status of Religious Freedom

Legal/Policy Framework

Freedom of religion does not exist. It is not recognized or protected under the country’s laws, and basic religious freedoms are denied to all but those who adhere to the state-sanctioned version of Sunni Islam. Citizens are denied the freedom to choose or change their religion, and noncitizens practice their beliefs under severe restrictions. Islam is the official religion, and all citizens must be Muslims.

The statement that “Islam does not allow the suppression of other religions” is an obvious case of taqiyya. In light of this, we must then come to the conclusion that the leaked document is the true version of the Memorandum.

The late Yasser Arafat, Nobel Peace Prize winner and terrorist leader was noted for use of taqiyya, deception of the kafirs. “Sheik Hilali and the late Yasser Arafat are both on public record as (a) ‘condemning’ the 9/11 attacks, in ambiguous terms, to the Western media and (b) praising suicide bombings, or “ martyrdom operations”, to their Arabic speaking audiences.” (Source article here.) Many in the West were unaware of these contradictory statements and, if they became aware of them, could not reconcile the contradiction of leaders speaking about peace to one audience then speaking of war and Jihad to another audience in Arabic. Taqiyya explains this contradiction and places this approach entirely in its proper context, Jihad against the kafirs, the unbelievers.

In light of taqiyya, can Arafat’s message of “peace” to the Nobel Prize committee be taken at face value, especially since Islamist terror attacks against Israel continued after the awarding of his Nobel? Can the Sheikh’s denials about the Memorandum in Kenya be believed? (Arafat’s speech available here. These extremist associations that clearly display a preference for extreme beliefs do not cause much concern among the American left and for them, why should they? These people and organizations with whom Obama affiliates himself are all agents of change, and that is exactly what the left says that they are screaming for, isn’t it?

But how can any American countenance Obama’s support of Sharia? This is a mystery. Islam has expanded for 1400 years. It continues to grow. It’s goals are contrary to our own. There could not be a more implacable foe of American democracy than political expansionist Islam. How can any American Jew support Obama’s candidacy?

It is likely that they are unaware of Mr. Obama support of Mr. Odinga. Islamists have made it clear that they prefer Mr. Obama. For them, he is the candidate of choice. For Americans, now armed with this information how can they support Mr. Obama when his motives, his background, his associations are all suspect? Now that they know this information, how can they support Mr. Obama? This issue must be the source of soul-searching for every Obama supporter. Can they support in good conscience a candidate who supports a political ideology who goal and purpose is the destruction of our country, our culture, our religions? The leftist can choose to ignore this issue preferring to believe the explanations of the Kenyan Muslim leaders as quoted in the BBC and dismiss the matter entirely. But if they do, can all the other issues also be dismissed?

When these are taken in totality, the conclusion is that Mr. Obama ought never be the president of the United States. In the midst of existential war, in the midst of economic crisis at home, and possible future wars and conflicts, how can the American people elect someone with a history such as this?

Mr. Obama continues to falsify his record and dissemble about his associations with Reverend Wright, William Ayers, Tony Rezco and other questionable characters.

Mr. Obama’s associations and obfuscations about his past relationships with these men would prevent him from ever acquiring a U.S. government security classification. Could it be possible that we could have a President who is considered a security risk? Indeed! According to an FAQ about obtaining security clearance for job seakers the following is shown:

I’m Tempted to Keep Quiet About Something In My Past and Hope Nobody Finds Out.

If you conceal information on your security form or during your subject interview, an adjudicator may determine that you are unreliable and dishonest. In fact your clearance could be denied for withholding information or purposely lying, even though what you were seeking to conceal would not have resulted in an unfavorable clearance determination

Read the FAQ here.

There is little argument that Mr. Obama has been less than forthcoming about the truth of his associations. By the measure described above, Mr. Obama could not receive a security clearance from the US government.

Political Islam and its sharia law are the existential enemies of the United States and of freedom everywhere. Islam does not descriminate, everyone must submit to it. “Islam” translates literally to “Submission”. A Muslim is “one who submits to Allah”. All countries and cultures and peoples must submit to Allah. The goal of Islam is to bring about world domination of Islam and universal submission to Allah. (The history of Islamic expansion through Jihad is a bloody and horrible one. Read about the high cost of Jihad, here) In such a world there can be no democracy, and no United States as we understand the term to mean and as our Founding Fathers meant it to mean as empowered and characterized and guided by our Constitution.

Barack Hussein Obama is favorable to sharia and is therefore excluded from any leadership role that requires him, as specified in the presidential oath of office, to: “to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” Sharia law is fundamentally opposed to the Constitution.

As the Koran is considered in the Islamic world to be perfect and, having originated directly from Allah to Mohammed, it cannot be changed, challenged, or questioned. There is little chance of changing the doctrine, though some are attempting it (see Muslims Against Sharia. As they say, “Islam, in its present form, is not compatible with principles of freedom and democracy.” Terror attacks from the 1993 bombing of the World Trade Centers to 9/11, Madrid, London, Paris, Bali, Moscow, USS Cole, Beslan, attacks in Iraq and Israel to the recent bombing of the Islamabad Marriott, we have seen the methods of the terrorists quite clearly. Sharia and the expansion of Islam is their goal, destruction and enslavement of the kafir (the non-believer) is a requirement of all Muslims through Jihad. Islam means submission. All must submit.

Did Mr. Obama know about Mr. Odinga’s agreement with the Muslim leadership of Kenya to bring sharia law to that predominantly Christian country? Mr. Obama was educated in an Islamic school/madrassa in Indonesia- he must understand the basic foundations of Islamic doctrine. We will likely never know for certain if Mr. Obama was aware of the Memorandum. If the veracity of the document itself is questioned, and Mr. Obama will never discuss the matter, and no American journalist will likely ever ask him about it, is that matter an important one? It is, and here is why.

If we examine this matter from a legal perspective under American jurisprudence one must take a preponderance of evidence to come to a conclusion. The preponderance of evidence leads one to the conclusion that the document which Odinga and Muslim leadership signed stating that Sharia law would be implemented across Kenya within a year of his election is legitimate. Mr. Obama was in the country campaigning with Odinga on the day that the document was signed, it is possible that Mr. Obama was aware of the agreement. After the loss of Odinga his supporters went on violent rampages in Kenya even burning a church and its occupants. This response appears to show that the violent response to Odinga’s electoral defeat was against the Christian majority. Burning of churches and destruction of houses of worship are the tools of Jihad.

We have acquiesced, both old and young, to inure ourselves to humiliation…All this notwithstanding, we do not escape this continued maltreatment [by Muslims] which well nigh crushes us. No matter how much we suffer and elect to remain at peace with them, they stir up strife and sedition.

-Maimonedes, as quoted by Andrew Bostom, here.

Stirring up trouble, burning churches, terrorizing the population are all earmarks of Jihad.

Can Mr. Obama be held accountable for his associations with Mssrs Odinga, Wright, Rezco, Ayers, Farrakhan? He certainly can. We must not vote for him. Trust is the foundation of democracy. We must trust that the laws are just, and fix them if they aren’t; we must trust that our leaders are capable and honorable, and remove them if they prove otherwise; we must trust that our system of government is a good one, and protect it when it is under threat; we must know our leaders as best we can - that is the purpose of the lengthy election cycle.

We know Mr. Obama fairly well now from his actions and from his lack of veracity about his associations. The Odinga case is instructive because it adds another facet to the disturbing enigma that is Mr. Obama. If we give him credit, as does his senior foreign policy adviser that his understanding of the world is not outmatched by anyone, and we can come to the conclusion that the Odinga Memorandum signed by Odinga while Mr. Obama was campaigning in Kenya for him is legitimate (that is, not a fraud/forgery) then the inescapable conclusion is that Mr. Obama was likely aware of the agreement. If he was aware of it, and we will never know this for sure, then he supported it because he was campaigning for Mr. Odinga.

Anyone who supports sharia law should be excluded from serving in any government or official position in the United States. Sharia law is contrary to democracy, freedom, equality, inclusiveness, justice, and religious plurality.

In this time of war, and economic difficulties, (in which Mr. Obama is deeply involved, and some would suggest culpable) the United States must have a president whose sense of duty, sense of honor and love of country are beyond question. Mr. Obama is not that man. This is an election about judgment. Mr. Obama demonstrates again and again a profound lack of good judgment. For example prior to the failure of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac which resulted in a spiraling failure of the American financial sector, Mr. Obama took campaign contributions from both, he “…received $126,349 in such contributions since being elected to the Senate in 2004.”
(Source, here and more, here.)

The former CEOs of these failed and corrupt institutions are now, or have been deeply involved in Obama’s campaign. Franklin Raines advises Obama on housing policy. Can anyone be less qualified to give advise on such matters? Mr. Johnson was the chair of Obama’s Vice Presidential search committee. “Johnson was appointed to head Obama’s vice presidential selection committee, until a controversy concerning an alleged $7 millions in questionable real estate loans he received on favorable terms from failed sub-prime mortgage lender Countrywide Financial surfaced and forced him to step down.” (See source above.)

Mr. Obama’s political, personal, professional, and advisory associations are all suspect and all show a serious lack of judgment on his part.

As Joe Biden, Mr. Obama’s Vice Presidential running-mate has stated recently, it is patriotic to pay higher taxes. (Source) Certainly, it is common knowledge that adding to the citizen’s tax burden during a time of economic contraction and crisis puts further strain on the economy and the people. Increasing taxes during a downturn does nothing to stimulate economic growth, quite the contrary. Another example, one of many, of poor judgment.

This may be one of the most important elections in American history, certainly on a par with the election of Roosevelt prior to WW2, or the election of Lincoln prior to the Civil War. In a struggle of existential proportions it is critical that our leadership be qualified, honorable, honest, and thoughtful more of what is best for the country rather than what is best for the next edition of one’s memoirs.

The failure of the mainstream press to vigorously pursue and investigate Mr. Obama’s associations and personal beliefs is a disservice to the American people. There are those on the left who are contrite in ignoring any contrary or disturbing information regarding their candidate’s questionable activities, and find no cause for concern. They seem pleased that the “change they need” is coming, and for some reason are confident that Wall Street crooks, and crooked politicians will be brought to justice and our enemies across the world will be either made our friends or effectively “dealt with”. They are confident for some reason that corruption will be eliminated and the guilty punished. There is far too much to be ignored however regarding Mr. Obama and what his real beliefs truly are.

The democratic party promises to fix the problems in the economy, and to bring America’s standing in the world to a glorious high through new friendships with those who mission is our destruction. We will provide our enemies with timetables they say so that our enemies can prepare for our departure and their victories; Mr. Obama says that he will talk with dictators and legitimize them and their cruelties and illegalities; Mr. Obama says that our military spending will be cut. This is naivete and shows a lack of understanding about how nations are governed and how nations interact. Mr. Obama promises to solve problems of the economy but uses two of the very people who caused the crisis as his advisers. The decision in November is a clear one. Mr. Obama is the lesser candidate.

It is decision time. You know what is at stake, and the character of the candidates are playing out every day on the campaign trail. Make the right decision on voting day.

For further information please see:

http://www.dhimmitude.org/
http://www.spectator.co.uk/melaniephillips/433766/the-kenyan-jihad.thtml
http://ajacksonian.blogspot.com/2008/01/odinga-obama-and-lack-of-courage.html
http://michaelinmi.wordpress.com/2008/01/31/barack-obama-and-his-support-for-islamic-sharia-law-and-al-qaeda/
http://atlasshrugs2000.typepad.com/atlas_shrugs/2008/01/obama-islam-and.html
http://africanpress.wordpress.com/2008/07/13/obama-marched-and-campaigned-with-the-sharia-law-people-of-kenya-who-wanted-obamas-man-odinga-to-become-president/

Your email:  
Subscribe Unsubscribe