OBAMA AND SHARIA LAW

yes Obama and his connections to Sharia through the ODM, the Orange Democratic Movement in Kenya with his cousin Odinga who set Kenya to riots after he lost the Presidential election, then blackmailing Kenya with violence such that a new post of Prime Minster was concocted to appease the African Weatherman.

It is the ODM that has embraced Sharia. Look up the article Obama the ODM Candidate for President for further details including ‘Friends of Obama’s” $1 million dollar contribution to ODM, the ODM strategy which involves taking over the media and media manipulation which segues into the ODM strategy against America. This also includes revelations concerning Obama’s trip to Kenya which appears to violate Senate Rules Yes investigate this one our sleuths out there.

The ODM is another MI6/CIA “people power coup” as with those operations against the Ukraine and Georgia. Georgia’s Saakashvilli of course comes to power through heavy funding by Georgia Soros one of the money bags pimping Obama.

So of course decadent Sharia law serves as the perfect backdrop to which to place impotent degenerates like the closet homosexual Obama, the demonic catamites of Daily Kos and such idiots as Alan Combs, where the dungeon master Pelosi masturbates to Bush’s Abu Graib snuff films and eats her own aborted children one could almost literally say in consideration of the evil wrought by the left gatekeepers that would do nothing about know facts as concern 9/11…

Of course radical Islamic terrorism has been run by the British since the concocted it in the 19th century. In the 1980′s and 90′s London was the foreign headquarters for many openly radical Islamic fundamentalist groups. As such the operation of Islamic fundamentalism and radical Islam has always furthered the aims of the British Empire and the Great Game now renamed the Grand Chessboard of Brzezinski Obama’s main handler.

Of course Brzezinski is the one who drew Russia into war in Afganistan against radical Islam. the aim is still Russia, and Barkey will not bat an eye in setting Asia further aflame…

In her first speech as Sen. John McCain’s running mate, Alaska Gov. Sarah Palin claimed a credential that might resonate with a nation blanching at the cost of gasoline — a record of taking on Big Oil.
“Along with fellow reformers in the great state of Alaska, as governor, I’ve stood up to the old politics as usual, to the special interests, to the lobbyists, the big oil companies, and the good-old-boy network,” Palin said, speaking to a crowd in Dayton, Ohio, after McCain introduced her to the nation on Aug. 29, 2008. “When oil and gas prices went up so dramatically and the state revenues followed with that increase, I sent a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska. And we are now — we’re now embarking on a $40-billion natural gas pipeline to help lead America to energy independence.”

We’ve already checked her claim that she sent “a large share of that revenue directly back to the people of Alaska.” We ruled it True.
So here we’ll examine whether she really stood up to the big oil companies, some of the most influential players in Alaska’s political scene.

Palin was sworn in as governor on Dec. 4, 2006. Over the course of 2007, she fought to raise taxes on oil companies. Alaska gets about 85 percent of its state revenue from oil taxes, and as fuel prices skyrocketed, Palin complained the state wasn’t getting its share of the windfall. She successfully pushed for a law that raised taxes on oil profits to 25 percent from 22.5, winning passage in the State Legislature in November 2007. The increase amounted to an estimated $1.6-billion annually more for the state.

Oil companies had opposed the increase, with executives saying it would discourage them from investing in the state. BP Alaska president Doug Suttles said after the Legislature passed the increase: “I can only hope that once the impact of this legislation is clear, the administration and the Legislature will revisit the issue.”
So yes, with respect to taxes, Palin stood up to big oil companies.

Palin has also sparred with big oil companies over who gets to build a pipeline to carry natural gas to market from Alaska’s North Slope. The fields there have enormous gas reserves, but so far they have remained largely untapped due to the lack of a pipeline. Palin’s predecessor, Frank Murkowski, supported a contract between the state and BP, ConocoPhillips and Exxon Mobil to develop the pipeline. Palin opposed that, promising to consider other companies.

Indeed, after she was elected she solicited other bids, and ended up supporting a proposal by TransCanada Corp. to build a 1,715-mile pipeline down the Alaska Highway and through Canada. Exxon, ConocoPhillips and BP all criticized Palin’s move to give the job to the Calgary-based company.

“She has taken an independent position and she has been protective of state sovereignty,” said Gerald McBeath, political science professor at the University of Alaska Fairbanks.
So in the pipeline battle as well, Palin took on big oil.

Palin also continued efforts Murkowski had launched to take back leases the state had awarded to Exxon Mobil, BP, Chevron and ConocoPhillips in the giant Point Thomson oil and gas field. Alaska officials were annoyed that the companies had not developed the field, which would boost state revenue. The companies said the fields posed technical challenges.
In that respect as well, Palin stood up to big oil.
——————————————————————————————————————-
“Obama Voted For Bush/Cheney Energy Bill, Written In Secret By Industry Lobbyists”

- New York Times OBAMA’S SUPPORT FOR BUSH/CHENEY ENERGY POLICY

Sen. Obama voted for the 2005 Energy Bill, written in secret by Vice President Cheney and the energy lobby. Thomas Friedman referred to the bill as “the sum of all lobbies.” U.S. PIRG noted that the bill’s “heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.”

The Washington Post editorialized that the bill was a “piñata of perks for energy industries.” Indeed, the bill contained $6 billion in subsidies to the oil and gas industry and $12 billion to the nuclear power industry.

Although Sen. Obama voted for the legislation, he has spoken as if he opposed it on the campaign trail, criticizing it repeatedly. At a presidential debate he said “You can look at how Dick Cheney did his energy policy…he met with oil and gas companies forty times, and that’s how they put together our energy policy.” He’s attributed the failure of our current energy policy to Congress’s “failure to stand up to the lobbyists.”

Sen. Obama’s rhetoric blasting the policies of Vice President Dick Cheney and energy lobbyists can be stirring. But Obama’s actions haven’t matched his words.

Read the details:
U.S. PIRG: ‘The [2005 Energy Bill] energy law’s heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of Exxon Mobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC’: “The new energy law’s heavy tilt toward big oil companies reflects the influence of ExxonMobil and other oil companies on policy-makers in Washington, DC.” [U.S. Public Interest Research Group, "How Exxon Mobil and the Oil Industry Benefit from the 2005 Energy Bill," 8/2005]

Washington Post: 2005 Energy Bill was ‘a piñata of perks for energy industries’: The Washington Post said, “…The energy bill, touted as a way to reduce dependence on foreign oil or moderate gasoline prices, has been turned into a piñata of perks for energy industries.” [Washington Post, 7/30/05]
Energy Bill gave $6 billion in subsidies to oil & gas industry and $12 billion in subsidies to nuclear power industry: [Public Citizen, "The Best Energy Bill Corporations Could Buy," citizen.org]

“Have you heard Obama’s new argument about how he has more experience than Palin (yes, he’s running against Palin now because McCain’s too hard)? He’s run a presidential campaign. That gives him the experience to be president.

It’s a neat concept. If you run a really good campaign and get elected president, then you have the experience to be president. If you lose the election, then obviously you didn’t have the needed experience. This means that we’ve gotten the best presidential choice in all our elections since the winner each time ran the best campaign. We have a perfect system!”