Rezko and Odinga and Obama - oh my.
I am linking two articles tonight that represent true diligence by "citizen" reporters. The first linked here connects the Rezko/Obama dots.
Also-


A regular around here has spent considerable time and effort looking into connections and parallels between Obama and someone who claims to be him first cousin, Raila Odinga - recent loser of the Kenyan Presidential election. The piece is linked here. It is indisputable that what followed Odinga's loss was a bloodbath in Kenya. A bloodbath Obama did nothing to stop - which both bloggers here railed about. Whether or not Obama had an actual and/or moral obligation to use his considerable celebrity in Kenya to help stop the violence is a question for you - the reader. Liberal Rapture felt he did.

Odinga is one of a number of Obama associates that have not been investigated in a meaningful way. We do know Obama traveled to Kenya in 2006. We also know the Kenyan government took issue with some of what he did there - as it appeared he campaigned for Odinga while a U.S. Senator. Behind the scenes extra governmental "help" is not new to Obama -as the Canada/NAFTA scandal during the Ohio primary proves. The writer makes a solid examination of the parallels between BHO's "movement" in the U.S. and Odinga's mob in Kenya.

Both these articles are arduous and are not light reading. I hope readers here make an effort to read them and draw their own conclusions.

My disclaimer: The inception for the Odinga piece comes from a letter the writer received from missionaries in Kenya. The letter expresses a fear of a "race war" in the U.S. Part 2 and 3 of this piece are compelling - however - I fear no "race war" as written about in part 1. Further, I see no reason to believe one is brewing or even potentially brewing. Should Obama NOT be nominated - God willing - threats of violence are real and have already been made. Should violence, in turn, happen - God forbid - it does not rise to the level of "race war". Those threatening violence do not represent a majority of any race - or even a substantial minority.

The missionaries may have a legitimate fear of something like this in Kenya - but in the U.S. I find it almost slanderous. The reasons for the overwhelming AA support of Obama go to race to be sure - but they also go to American history, heritage and pride. No implication should be made that race violence will be the result of an Obama loss. Violence may result because of some idiots - but idiots come in all colors. Besides, AA's vote Democratic at 90% rate in almost every national election. BHO's 94% poll numbers with this group is hardly a surprise. In fact, it's a bit low.

Finally the "Muslim" question. I think it is a legitimate one. I also think both sides may be right and speaking past each other. By Islamic standards Obama may well be considered a Muslim. His father was - and that is the "law" as I understand it. Much the same as one is Jewish if a her/his mother was. Most of the time, I don't care one bit about a candidate's faith or lack of one. This is not universal. A satanist or a scientologist would not get my vote. Period. Call me a bigot if you like - I wholly own the label in those cases. Islam doesn't bother me a bit. In fact, I admire it and have a real admiration for the few practicing Muslims I know.

Why do I think the Obama "Muslim" issue is legitimate? Because Islam is a world faith that has value. Americans should know as much as we can about it. If Obama was influenced by it in his youth - which he certainly was - this is a good thing and there is no shame in owning it. BHO saying "I have never been a Muslim" may be correct and incorrect - and I think we all should learn why. For the record: I take Obama's professed Christianity at face value. Religious transformations are as varied as people. The main thrust of his chosen church is a problem, though. The country they want and the country I want are not compatible. The extent the Obama's signed on to that church's teachings concerns me a great deal. So did W's right wing Christianity.

The writer makes clear the issue is NOT Islamic influence per say. But the influence of the version of Islam that erases the church (mosque)/state line. THAT is a problem. All religions have a fringe that loathes Enlightenment values. All should be opposed.

So read the articles. Take what you want and leave the rest. Information is good. Opinion is good. Democracy is messy and confrontational.