I was reading through some archives of the African Press International when I came upon an older article that discusses Senator Obama's trip to Kenya where he was campaigning for fellow Luo Raila Odinga (“your agent for change’-seriously, how coincidental is that?), who was running for President.
I shouldn't have to tell you about the violence and bloodshed that followed this election. Odinga is a socialist monster who wanted to stop Kenya's support for the war on terror. He also wanted to create a Muslim state, but that's beside the point. A Kenyan government spokesman, Dr. Alfred Mutua said;
"Sen. Obama has to look at critically about where he's receiving his advice from.."
The article is summarized thusly:
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.
I couldn't agree more.
One thing that bothers me about all of this is how folks tend to rely on how true/false something is based on Politifact.com or snopes.com instead of verifying these things for themselves. I bet Mussolini would have loved to have had such a nice tool at his disposal. Not that it currently is being used in this manner. I don't think that. But they seem to be wrong quite often. Too often for my taste. A good example is their saying that Obama did write a letter to Paulson about Fannie Mae. Then they reference a letter on the Obama website as evidence. They looked no further. Hey, that is sound fact checking, isn't it? Go to the candidates website. There could be no lies there, right?