OBAMA’S KENYA CONNECTION….SEE NOTE PLEASE

Posted By on July 17th, 2010

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2010/jul/16/the-kenya-connection/
Andrew McCarthy wrote about Obama’s Kenya connection in his book “THE GRAND JIHAD: How Islam and the Left Sabotage America (Encounter Books May 2010). Here is a snippet….
McCarthy: Obama’s father was a Kenyan Muslim and a communist. He was a member of the Luo tribe, whose leader, Jaramongi Oginga Odinga, was a raging communist who bitterly opposed the pro-Western, pro-American Kenyatta government. Obama’s father wrote a paper – which the press in this country refused to report about during the 2008 election – that was called “Problems Facing Our Socialism.” The paper was a communist (or “scientific socialism”) critique of Kenyatta’s economic policies, placing Obama Sr. firmly in the Odinga camp. In many ways, Pres. Obama seems ambivalent about the father he hardly knew, but he has effusively praised Obama Sr.’s academic accomplishments in economics and what he euphemistically calls the “promise” his father had to fulfill to Africa. That “promise” was Marxism – that was Obama Sr.’s ideology.
Odinga’s son, Raila Odinga, is a committed communist – so much so that he named one of his sons after Fidel Castro. (One of his daughters is named after Winnie Mandela, who of course urged “necklacing” and other brutality and was convicted of kidnapping and accessory to murder.) Odinga was also complicit in a plot to overthrow Daniel arap Moi, Kenyatta’s pro-American successor, in a violent coup in 1982 – for which he spent eight years in prison. In the insidious world of African politics, this did not disqualify him for future advancement. Odinga became energy minister in 2001, which enabled him to strike very lucrative personal arrangements with Colonel Gaddafi in Libya and with Sheikh Abdukeder al-Bakari of the Al Bakari oil dynasty in Saudi Arabia. By the way, al-Bakari’s name appears on the “golden chain” list of wealthy donors to Osama bin Laden during the Afghan mujahideen’s jihad against the Soviets. (The list was seized from an al Qaeda safehouse during a 2002 raid in Sarajevo.)
Notwithstanding this history, when Raila Odinga decided to run for president in 2007, then-Senator Barack Obama – who did very little in America during his brief stint in the senate – spent six days in Kenya campaigning for and with Odinga. During their barnstorming, Obama lambasted the incumbent, pro-American government as corrupt and in need of … wait for it … Change.
It later emerged that Odinga had made a deal with Kenya’s Islamist faction (a turbulent minority) to impose sharia law and Islamic courts if he won the election. He lost the election and (surprise!) the Islamists revolted.
This plunged Kenya into chaos, with thousands displaced and many killed. Odinga capitalized on the violence, and on his close relationship with Obama, to extort the Kenyan government into creating a powerful position for him: prime minister, an office no one had held in Kenya since Kenyatta occupied it in the brief transitional phase before he became president of the new republic.
I believe this is a remarkable and frightening story. But it has gotten virtually no American media coverage.

EDITORIAL: The Kenya connection

Obama administration efforts in Africa may violate federal law

The Kenyan president wants a new constitution, one that opens the door to abortion on demand. President Obama is willing to use U.S. taxpayer dollars to persuade voters to approve the updated governing document, which would loosen regulations designed to protect the unborn, establish Muslim family courts and create a right to homosexual marriage. It’s not unusual that Kenyan President Mwai Kibaki would see enactment of the provisions as a “government project,” but Mr. Obama is on shaky legal ground when he commits U.S. government resources to it.

On Aug. 4, Kenya‘s 12.3 million registered voters will be asked a simple question: “Do you approve the proposed new constitution?” It is doubtful that many will have the opportunity to read the entire 206-page document, which was created by a committee of experts whose consultants and office equipment were bankrolled with $580,381 in grants from the U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID). Section 26 of the proposal explicitly allows a “trained health professional” to snuff the life of an unborn baby at any stage of a pregnancy. “It is a radical departure from existing law,” Rep. Christopher H. Smith, New Jersey Republican, told The Washington Times.

Under the Siljander Amendment, a provision of federal appropriations law, it is illegal to use foreign aid to “lobby for or against abortion.” The U.S. Embassy in Nairobi on Friday told the Associated Press that it had suspended or terminated nine grants, but it denied directly funding the referendum’s Yes campaign. Officials obviously were feeling congressional heat, asMr. Smith had obtained documents from USAID‘s inspector general that identified $632,479.99 in federal grants whose explicit and direct purpose was rounding up affirmative votes.

For example, USAID’s Office of Transition Initiatives provided $56,953.33 to the Kenya Muslim Youth Alliance for “one of a series of activities that aim to contribute to an ‘overrepresentation’ of the YES voters at the next referendum.” Broader grants that add up to $23 million went to groups whose activities USAID variously described as “polling,” “communications,” “voter registration,” “roadshows” and “advocacy targeting policy makers.” That means U.S. taxpayers paid the salaries of community organizers in Kenya for the purpose of changing the country’s stance on abortion.

“Do you know what kind of political campaign you can run with $23 million in Kenya, where you can buy even more with the dollar?” Mr. Smith asked. “If a foreign country came into New Jersey for a referendum and dropped $23 million for an outcome that I found antithetical to everything I believe in, I would be outraged.”

The outrage is compounded by the potential illegality of the conduct. That’s why a full investigation of the White House’s involvement in this matter is in order. The United States has an interest in promoting fair and open elections where all sides have the freedom to voice their opinion. The Obama administration has no business spending federal funds to promote the culture of death overseas, especially when such efforts are prohibited by law.

Categorized under: ANTI-SEMITISM.
Tagged with: no tags.

Comments are closed.