Category Archives: Africa

Muslim Roots Of The Blues

Here is an excerpt from a San Francisco Chronicle article suggesting that the American Blues style of popular music may actually have Muslim slave origins.

BAILEY LIVES ON Georgia's Sapelo Island, where a small community of blacks can trace their ancestry to Bilali Mohammed, a Muslim slave who was born and raised in what is now the country of Guinea. Visitors to Sapelo Island are always struck by the fact that churches there face east. In fact, as a child, Bailey learned to say her prayers facing east—the same direction that her great-great-great-great-grandfather faced when he prayed toward Mecca.

Bilali was an educated man. He spoke and wrote Arabic, carried a Qur'an and a prayer rug, and wore a fez that likely signified his religious devotion. (Bilali had been trained in Africa to be a Muslim leader; on Sapelo Island, he was appointed by his slave master to be an overseer of other slaves). Although Bilali's descendents adopted Christianity, they incorporated Muslim traditions that are still evident today.

The name Bailey, in fact, is a reworking of the name Bilali, which became a popular Muslim name in Africa because one of Islam's first converts—and the religion's first muezzin—was a former Abyssinian slave named Bilal. (Muezzins are those who recite the call to prayer from the minarets of mosques. ) One historian believes that abolitionist Frederick Douglass, who changed his name from Frederick Bailey, may have had Muslim roots.

"History changes things," says Bailey, 59, who chronicled the history of Sapelo Island in her memoir, "God, Dr. Buzzard, and the Bolito Man."

"Things become something different from what they started out as."

The tiny community of Hog Hammock on Sapelo Island in Georgia is one of the earliest freed slave settlements, and it is still home to descendants of the original owners. That may change though, as the Gullah-Geechee people in the Hog Hammock community are being forced to sell because of soaring property taxes. The owners aren’t giving up without a fight, though, and are making their story known.

Hog Hammock has a population of less than 50, and according to resident Cornelia Bailey, the people there receive no county services. This makes it difficult for the home and business owners in the community to understand why their property appraisals (and tax bills) are soaring. The community has no school, no police station and only one paved road to maintain.

Read it all.

Has Obama Scorned Traditional Americanism?

House of Obama
House of Obama
WHEN BARACK OBAMA ACCEPTS the Democratic nomination later this week, he will portray himself as a shining example of the Great American Dream. With his impressive rhetorical skill, he will speak of embracing America’s common ideals and securing them for future generations and continuing on that glorious path established by our founding fathers, yada, yada. And he won’t mean a word of it.

To the contrary, Obama largely rejects the principles of individual liberty on which this nation was founded. His thinking is more closely aligned with Karl Marx’s than John Locke’s.

“In America,” Obama frequently scoffs, “we have this strong bias toward individual action. You know, we idolize the John Wayne hero who comes in to correct things with both guns blazing. But individual actions, individual dreams, are not sufficient. We must unite in collective action, build collective institutions and organizations.”

Or as Marx put it, “Don’t wrangle with us so long as you apply, to our intended abolition of bourgeois property, the standard of your bourgeois notions of freedom, culture, law, etc.”

Personal liberty and responsibility are dangerous, according to Marx, because they allow an individual to be “regarded as an isolated monad, withdrawn into himself,” rather than one whose responsibility is to the larger society.

Echoing that sentiment, Obama regularly sneers that the right wing “keeps appealing to that old individualistic bootstrap myth: get a job, get rich, and get out. … And they also have hijacked the higher moral ground with this language of family values and moral responsibility.

“Now we have to take this same language—these same values that are encouraged within our families—of looking out for one another, of sharing, of sacrificing for each other—and apply them to a larger society. Let’s talk about creating a society, not just individual families, based on these values.”

Indeed, Obama openly scorns the idea that individual families should take care of themselves. In his speeches he mocks conservatives who prefer “to give everyone one big refund on their government—divvy it up by individual portions—hand it out, and encourage everyone to use their share to go buy their own health care, their own retirement plan, their own child care, their own education, and so on.”

“In Washington, they call this the Ownership Society,” he continues. “And it is especially tempting because each of us believes we will always be the winner in life’s lottery, that we’re the one who will be the next Donald Trump, or at least we won’t be the chump who Donald Trump says: “You’re fired!”

Obama is aware of this brother’s impoverished existence, but in the years since Obama became quite affluent, and now a multi-millionaire, it’s been cool with him. He just doesn’t mention him; he’s basically totally forgot about him, his own family. “For the price of a cup of coffee a day,” Obama could have lifted his brother, who had only the misfortune of being born in Kenya, up from poverty. But he didn’t. Now Obama wants to take care of your family
Got that? Only chumps dare to dream. (This from the candidate peddling hope.)

Although Marx would wince at the mention of God, he surely would approve of Obama’s implicit disdain for private ownership and individual achievement expressed in this line: “As long as there are those who try to privatize our government and decimate our social programs and peddle a philosophy of trickle-down and on-your-own, I ask you to keep marching for a vision of America where we rise or fall as one nation under God.”

Marx denounced the “bourgeois freedom” that permitted “an individual separated from the community, withdrawn into himself, wholly preoccupied with his private interest and acting in accordance with his private caprice.”

That upsets Obama, too. In the canned speech he gives at college commencement ceremonies, he says to graduates, “You can take your diploma, walk off this stage, leave this city, and go chasing after the big house and the large salary and the nice suits and all the other things that our money culture says you should buy. You can narrow your concerns to what’s going on in your own little circle and live life in a way that tries to keep your story separate from America’s.”

Marx was more succinct. Explaining why the right to own private property is wrong-headed, he said because it allowed “the right to enjoy one’s fortunes and dispose of it as he will without regard for other men and independently of society.”

Young Obama
Young Obama
Obama doesn’t quote Marx word-for-word—but it’s close. Looks like Joe Biden isn’t going to be the only plagiarist on the Democratic ticket.

From the Washington Examiner columnist Melanie Scarborough, an award-winning commentary writer whose work has appeared in more than two dozen newspapers, magazines, and books.

Strange that the Obama's opted for the large salary, big house, fancy suits, dance lessons for the children, that is to say, the good life, while laying a guilt trip on doe-eyed college graduates aimed to convince them to eschew such a path. Yep, change we can believe in. Always egging up someone else to do the changing, while coyly exempting themselves.

Read on to find Zoe's charitable comments hailing the senior Senator from Massachusetts:

Senator Kennedy brought tears to my eyes last night. He is still working for us—reminding us of our history and that the rest of us need to get off that couch and get to work and take up that baton he is handing us. I see several of you, by your comments, are doing just that. But for the rest of us...

Yes, it's time for some radical centrism to shake this rotten tree. It's time for accountability. It's time to strike at the failed policies of those who seek to enslave us, whether these forces come from the far left or the far right, or even worse, from agents of foreign agitation and aggression.
With that heroic vision in mind, we need to unite and control the corporate ruling class that has put us in this era of Poverty. Our fight is very American as exhibited by Bacon's Rebellion in 1676 where poor whites and poor blacks were united against the elite Tidewater Gentry.

The "gentry" owned all the good land/property and had political power beyond their numbers (they could afford lobbyists). Many of the poor (small farmers, indentured servants, etc.) were debtors. Sound familiar?

The fear of the unification of the black and whites led Virginia to pass laws that made slavery lifelong and a status that was passed on to one's children. This now created a racially based class system with blacks at the bottom. The poorest white indentured servants were now above them. This broke the commonality of interest that ensured cooperation between the poor English and poor Africans which had existed during Bacon's Rebellion.

Thus, legalized, hereditary racial slavery led to the division among the poor and working class today.

US Beauty
American Beauty
Time to finally do something about it which brings us to the historical significance of Mr. Obama's candidancy. Can we reach full circle? Can we be lead out of the desert by Mr. Obama?

Are we capable of really educating ourselves about what our nation needs instead of just reacting to the stimuli of soundbites, spin, fake news, propaganda, prejudice, paid political hacks calling themselves "pundits" or commercials designed to misinform?

Can we lift off the yoke placed on us since 1676 that controls us and has brainwashed us into the luxury of thinking we can look down on people when the majority of us are under Mr. McCain's $5M cutoff?

Can we, the majority, unite our country by class, color, gender, race, creed just this once to flex our power as a democratic people?

The rich just keep on getting richer doing whatever they want because there is no accountability. They can buy their $20m homes and take their golden parachutes after raping a company made up of people trying to earn an honest wage to support their families.

It is time for a reckoning. And it time to end the manipulation of our nation. Thank you Senator Kennedy for never giving up your hope in us.

Yes, it's time for some radical centrism to shake this rotten tree. It's time for accountability. It's time to strike at the failed policies of those who seek to enslave us, whether these forces come from the far left or the far right, or even worse, from agents of foreign agitation and aggression. Enough is enough.

Then there is the breaking news of the lawsuit filed by Philip Berg against Barack Obama officially stipulating that as a foreign national, Obama is not constitutionally qualified to stand for election to the highest office in the nation.

But here is the sad news. Police are investigating whether they have foiled an assassination plot against Barack Obama after four people were arrested near the Democratic convention in Denver in the possession of high powered rifles. Fortunately, this asinine plot was foiled.

Oh yes, the photo at the top of this entry? That's poverty. That's also George Obama, Kenyan son of Harvard graduate Barack Obama, Sr., and brother to the Democratic Party's candidate for President of these United States of America, an America he would hand over to the United Nations as a down payment on the New World Order he expects to usher into existence, if he thumps John McCain in November. No doubt he will have a mandate. Not much different than Mister Bush's desperate mandate. A change of uniforms. That's all. Such as the ways and means of the Left. Strap yourself in, my friends. This ride will turn bloody, somewhere, somehow, no doubt. Maybe his brother will kick things off by offering a handout to George in Kenya, now that the press has broken the story, and helped puncture the Obama balloon. Charity begins at home they say.

Here are a few words from the ever insightful Max Publius:

"McCain is so rich (not usually a bad thing, unless you're a rich Democrat talking about Republicans) that he can't remember how many houses he has, as he admitted in a recent radio interview. Now, this is somewhat profligate, I must admit. It shows a lack of concern with finances that only people who stumbled upon their money would have (in this case, through his rich wife, who inherited it). But then there is Obama, who is exploiting McCain's domicile innumeracy.

"Obama owns one house. It is a small mansion (some of McCain's are small condos), but he would have us believe owning one house is a sign he is an ascetic. He doesn't mention how, when he wasn't so well known, it was financed through his crooked friend, the jailed Tony Rezko, a Syrian "Islamochristian"-type whose signature corruption style involves deals with the likes of the Nation of Islam and shady Iraqi financiers.

"Losing track of your money is somewhat irresponsible, but losing track of the number of brothers you have, as Obama has, is completely repulsive. The press has dug up yet another Obama half-brother, this one living in total abject poverty in a fly and disease shanty in Kenya on less than a dollar a day. Obama is aware of this brother's impoverished existence, but in the years since Obama became quite affluent, and now a multi-millionaire, it's been cool with him. He just doesn't mention him; he's basically totally forgot about him, his own family. "For the price of a cup of coffee a day," Obama could have lifted his brother, who had only the misfortune of being born in Kenya, up from poverty. But he didn't. Now Obama wants to take care of your family.

"Of course, this brother is a result of Obama the Senior's Islamically-inspired philandering—a lack of concern with off-spring among those who "emulate the prophet" in this regard. That brings up Islam, of course. Obama believes the sharia call to prayer is "the most beautiful sound on Earth." No mention what he thinks of the Islamic justification for killing ex-Muslims, polygamy, wife beating, child marriage (rape), or the Koranic exhortations for violent jihad against non-Muslims or the degrading treatment of "people of the book" (Christians and Jews) under sharia law. This would seem rather more compelling for the voters to know about, post 9/11, than Obama's opinion on the incessant warbling from Muslim minarets. After all, Obama is the son of a semi-lapsed Muslim. He might have some feelings on the topic.

Fat chance we'll hear about it.

[Has Obama Scorned Traditional Americanism?]

Obama's Mysterious Religious Convictions

Neither Christian nor Muslim, but Marxist?
Honest minds want to know, and we have little to offer but a bit of light reporting by the Washington Post. Read it all. But in savoring the PR of the man who seems to feel peculiarly qualified to lead America in these treacherous times solely because he has smelled the stench of poverty in his own family, and by virtue of mixed race, can solve America's racial puzzle, I suggest we look closer at the man and not so much at the tailored suit he's wearing.

Let's step back. I watched Obama's breathtaking speech at the '04 National Democratic Convention, and like any of the millions of patriotic Americans who watched with me, I was enthralled by the combination of words, the force of delivery, the charm and charisma of this man from Illinois. But one cannot help but wonder, how far this packaged idealism will fly in a world of hidden bombs and brutal treachery, particularly since this article doesn't answer any of the tough questions it only hints at asking. Is it possible that Obama can stride into the White House and become the new Lincoln? It's possible, but so far I haven't seen or heard much since that speech at the Convention to warrant such sketch of wishful thinking.

This article answers none of the questions that have been floating about, including the one about the racist attitudes of the Chicago-based church of which he is a prominent member. The Chicago Sun-Times reports on this matter here. Are Obama's ties to Islam equally entrenched in shadows and undergirded by secrets? It is easy to doubt that these things can be true. But surely, it is better to know that they are false.

The article...

In his speeches and often on the Internet, the part of Sen. Barack Obama's biography that gets the most attention is not his race but his connections to the Muslim world. Since declaring his candidacy for president in February, Obama, a member of a congregation of the United Church of Christ in Chicago, has had to address assertions that he is a Muslim or that he had received training in Islam in Indonesia, where he lived from ages 6 to 10. While his father was an atheist and his mother did not practice religion, Obama's stepfather did occasionally attend services at a mosque there.

Despite his denials, rumors and e-mails circulating on the Internet continue to allege that Obama (D-Ill.) is a Muslim, a "Muslim plant" in a conspiracy against America, and that, if elected president, he would take the oath of office using a Koran, rather than a Bible, as did Rep. Keith Ellison (D-Minn.), the only Muslim in Congress, when he was sworn in earlier this year.

In campaign appearances, Obama regularly mentions his time living and attending school in Indonesia, and the fact that his paternal grandfather, a Kenyan farmer, was a Muslim. Obama invokes these facts as part of his case that he is prepared to handle foreign policy, despite having been in the Senate for only three years, and that he would literally bring a new face to parts of the world where the United States is not popular.

The son of a white woman from Kansas and a black man from Kenya, Obama was born and spent much of his childhood in Hawaii, and he talks more about his multicultural background than he does about the possibility of being the first African American president, in marked contrast to Sen. Hillary Rodham Clinton (D-N.Y.), who mentions in most of her stump speeches the prospect of her becoming the first woman to serve as president.

"A lot of my knowledge about foreign affairs is not what I just studied in school. It's actually having the knowledge of how ordinary people in these other countries live," he said earlier this month in Clarion, Iowa.

"The day I'm inaugurated, I think this country looks at itself differently, but the world also looks at America differently," he told another Iowa crowd. "Because I've got a grandmother who lives in a little village in Africa without running water or electricity; because I grew up for part of my formative years in Southeast Asia in the largest Muslim country on Earth."

Read it all here.

Stereotyping 101

Name That Stereotype...

The following essay is a very astute and quite complete analysis from a writer named Selwyn Duke one of the most profane horrors of the PC crowd.

In a racial profiling lawsuit against the Maryland State Police (MSP), a plaintiff's attorney named Eliza Leighton said that some training documents contain "startling examples of racial stereotypes about Hispanics."  According to the Associated Press:

For example, one document cautions that Hispanics generally do not hold their alcohol well. They tend to drink too much and this leads to fights. And it notes, Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient. Other stereotypes include the assertion that the weapon of choice for Hispanics is a knife and that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English.

Regardless of the outcome of this lawsuit, we can now expect such information to be purged from the training documents.  But, as I wrote about Dr. James Watson's comments regarding Africans, intelligence and genetics, this is part of a very distressing pattern.  Everyone fixates on the fact that such comments constitute generalizations (about groups that are supposed to be immune from such things), as if this is an offense in and of itself.  Yet, no one seems to ask the only relevant question.

Are the generalizations true?

Before anyone waxes stupid, please don't tell me that all generalizations are invalid because not every member of the given group will conform to a generalization.  Intelligent people understand that legitimate generalizations are statements about a group's general characteristics, not individuals' specific ones.  For example, if I say that men are taller than women, I don't mean that every man towers over every woman; nevertheless, it is an accurate relation of a general difference between the groups. 

This brings us to an important point: While we must judge everyone as an individual, there are differences within groups but also differences among them.  Thus, it makes no more sense to paint every group with the same brush than it does to pain every individual with the same brush.

My response to those who cannot or will not accept this is that if they can't understand commentary written for adults, they shouldn't read it.  Besides, not all generalizations can be invalid simply because the statement that all generalizations are invalid is itself is a generalization.

Modern dogma holds that diversity is one of the greatest qualities a society can enjoy, that it bestows many advantages.  But what does this imply?  Well, by definition "diversity" refers to differences among groups.  Now, not only is it illogical to assume that every one of these differences will be flattering, the supposition that diversity is beneficial implies otherwise.  After all, if diversity is beneficial, it is only because certain groups bring qualities or strengths to the table that others do not.  And, if a given group possesses a certain unique strength, then other groups are wanting in that area relative to it.

No. This isn't to say that every stereotype or generalization—or what is known as a "profile" in the realm of law enforcement—is completely accurate. But when one is found wanting, it simply warrants the alteration of its flawed elements, not the throwing out of the baby with the bath water. If a difference is frivolous and fun, it should be a source of mirth; if it indicates greater ability, it should be applauded; and if the difference is damning, remedy should be sought.

Any which way you care to slice it, this is a corollary of diversity dogma. 

So, ironically, despite the fact that the diversity dogmatists would eschew stereotyping, a version of it imbues their ideology.  So it's not that they don't have biases relating to generalizations, only that their understanding of group differences is clumsy and primitive, sort of like Archie Bunker but with advanced degrees, the illusion of intellectualism and the inability to be honest with themselves and others.  So let's be honest now.

Stereotypes often arise because they have a basis in reality. It is ridiculous to say one has burst a stereotype, when you have only presented an exception to the generalization. For example, often it has been remarked that Irishmen like to drink.  Once again, intelligent people know this doesn't mean that every Irishman is a drunkard, but informed people might know something else: Ireland ranks number two in the world in per capita alcohol consumption next to Luxemburg.

Another difference among groups is that some are more patriarchal than others.  We know that Moslem societies are quite so, as women are usually afforded fewer legal rights. In fact, Westerners will often emphasize and lament this difference as a way to burnish their credentials as believers in women's liberation. 

In light of this, let's now analyze the MSP's statement that "Hispanic males are raised to be MACHO and brave, while females are raised to be subservient."  Since some groups are more patriarchal than others, this can be true; and I venture to say that anyone who has had great contact with Hispanic people and possesses eyes and common sense will know it's often enough true compared to, say, Swedes.

As to these matters, Raul Caetano, Catherine L. Clark and Tammy Tam, three Ph.Ds who received a government grant to study common sense, implicitly vindicate two of the MSP's assertions.  They write in their paper, Alcohol Consumption Among Racial/Ethnic Minorities:

"One traditional explanation for heavy drinking patterns among Hispanic men, particularly Mexican-Americans, is the concept of ‘exaggerated machismo.'"

While these researchers didn't accept or reject this explanation, they didn't question the suppositions that Hispanic men drink too much and are "macho."  So then why are the Maryland State Police probably going to have to pay money for saying what these academics got paid money to say?  Well, it neither serves the left's agenda to sue a few eggheads nor can cash be extracted from them. Besides, there is another factor: If a truth hurts, since you can't destroy the Truth, you destroy the truth-teller. And here is another truth.  I have only one thing to say about the idea that Hispanics are reluctant to learn English: I've never been asked if I wanted to press two for German.

Stereotypes aren't just woven into flawed leftist ideology (please forgive the redundancy) and million-dollar research substitutes for common sense; they also appear in entertainment.  Just think about all the times that whites are characterized as nerdy, lacking rhythm or liking mayonnaise (as to this, watch the movie Undercover Brother or Al Yankovic's music video "White & Nerdy").  Yet, golfer Fuzzy Zoeller was practically clubbed to death for quipping that Tiger Woods shouldn't request fried chicken or collard greens after the latter's record-setting performance at the 1997 Masters tournament.  (I was "startled" myself; since Woods' mother hails from Thailand, I would have thrown in phat gapow).  Seriously, though—or almost seriously—if whites can be smeared with mayonnaise, other groups can be coddled with their cuisines.

This isn't to say that every stereotype or generalization—or what is known as a "profile" in the realm of law enforcement—is completely accurate.  But when one is found wanting, it simply warrants the alteration of its flawed elements, not the throwing out of the baby with the bath water.  If a difference is frivolous and fun, it should be a source of mirth; if it indicates greater ability, it should be applauded; and if the difference is damning, remedy should be sought.

But this standard won't be embraced until we accept what is perhaps the most valid generalization of all: The leftist thought police are a menace to civilization and free speech.  They are turning us into an ideological state, a place where ideology isn't rejected when it departs from truth but truth is rejected when it departs from ideology.

As for remedy, the best antidote to political correctness is its opposite.  We don't have to speak and joke and talk and think in a way that pleases those who prove that infantilism doesn't always peak in infancy.  Instead, we should stand up for truth—be it in the form of wit, policy or paradigm—and those who speak it.  Do this en masse and "startle" those thought police enough, and we just might be rid of them after all.  That is, if they actually do have hearts.  

  • Selwyn Duke is a frequent contributor to American Thinker.
  • Bono Warns Islamic Threat Real

    Bono With Wife Ali

    Not that this news is sweeping through the mainstream media wind tunnels, but Bono, lead singer for the Irish rock band, U2, has issued a warning in a recent Rolling Stone interview that bears repeating. A noted liberal celebrity bucking his own usual party line to engage the results of honest unbias observations is indeed real news. Because let's face it, the press loves to headline celebrities who speak out against President Bush, the war against Islamic fundamentalism and anything else that strikes paydirt in the darling media's end zone. This celebrity, however, has gone off-script.

    Bono's efforts for Africa, unlike many other celebrities, appear to be sincere and he has shown himself to be unconcerned with who helps him, as shown by his collaborations with President Bush—a strange bedfellow scenario that would be anathema to most of his fellow celebrities. Now comes evidence that Bono also understands the threat posed by Islamic fundamentalists such as al-Qaeda, and his courage to call evil by it's name. In the interview with the ultra liberal magazine, Bono said of the Islamic nemesis:

    "I want to be very, very clear, however: I understand and agree with the analysis of the problem. There is an imminent threat. It manifested itself on 9/11. It's real and grave. It is as serious a threat as Stalinism and National Socialism were. Let's not pretend it isn't."

    Bono goes on to show that he discourages those steeped in the Bush Derangement Syndrome approach to world politics. In response to the reporter's statement that "But this Administration destroyed that." when they discussed the outpouring of support for the United States immediately following the attacks of September 11, Bono says of President Bush"

    There was a plan there, you know. I think the president genuinely felt that if we could prove a model of democracy and broad prosperity in the Middle East, it might defuse the situation.

    Despite his sometimes petulent ideology, this particular celebrity—in my opinion—is someone worthy of respect, because he understands that the threat is a real one and it is not one that can be defused simply by talking. In this, as in his statement that I try to stick to my pitch, and it's an abuse of my access for me to switch subjects, he earns that respect.

    The rocker turned activist and philanthropist is keenly focussed on his efforts for Africa, knowing that this focus is what gets him access and he did not want to abuse it. Bravo, Bono. I for one, have never been much of a fan, but with these recent developments, while his music may still fall on deaf ears, I have gained a strong measure of respect for Bono the man.

    Save Ethiopia From The Wolves

    Cracking Surface
    Cracking Surface
    Posted on Jihad Watch by Hugh Fitzgerald, the following article makes clear YET AGAIN the ridiculous posture American and other Western politicians have taken toward Muslim aggressors anywhere they find them across the global with one notable exception—Afghanistan—and that was only a quarter measure of the necessary response because these same leaders were too busy planning an attack on Iraq instead of focussing on a clean victory in Taliban territories. But I digress:

    Talk to Ethiopian Christians in the West. Ask them about their fears. Not fears or memories of this or that regime, of Mengistu and the Derg, or complaints about Zenawi, but fears about Islam. Many may be hesitant at first, thinking perhaps you might be a Muslim or a supporter of Muslims, but if you forthrightly declare your own views, see what you are told in return, what a torrent may follow.

    The demographic conquest of the last redoubt of Christianity, the famous Christian Kingdom of Ethiopia, so famous that when the inhabitants of Western Christendom, under constant Muslim attack, with raids up and down the coasts of Europe as far as Ireland and on one occasion, even as far as Iceland, sought and found a comforting myth of the powerful Christian king, beyond the lands of Islam, who would help the Christians of Europe fight the menace of Islam. At first this mythical kingdom of Prester John was located in Asia, in distant India, but later became identified in the minds of many in Europe with Ethiopia as the new Kingdom of Prester John.

    Here is how one blogger at an Addis Ababa site expresses his fears:

    The transparent argument here is that Christians are not allowed to help fellow Christians lest the war be perceived, as it is declared to be by the Muslims in Somalia and by all the non-Somali Muslims who will help them, as a war between Muslims and Christians.
    "Ethiopia is at a crossroads. In fact it was headed for this crossroad no matter who was prime minister. It is a lion cub being hunted by the sabre of Islam. Islam is at odds with democracy, freedom and human liberty. It will ultimately oppose Ethiopia, even in violation of its own Koran.

    I have been traveling & working in Ethiopia for several years now. There have been many changes. While the politics of Meles may be brought into question. Any situation beats the DERG and I would say the current status, though far from perfect beats an Islamic state any day. Ethiopia faces the loss of a developing democracy to the enemies of freedom and liberty.

    Where Islam is the minority they are as lambs, where they are equal in power they are like a fox, when Islam is the majority they are as wolves.

    What's going on is not merely political or philosophical, it is a war of ideology. The sovereignty of Ethiopia is at stake. Shore up her borders and then tackle the internal issues, as a parlimentary democracy—there is less freedom in an Islamic-fascist state. Just visit Somalia or Eritrea."

    A former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia wrote: ‘Islam in Ethiopia has confined itself entirely to the spiritual realm. It has shown no interest in politics, though it is keenly aware that it comprises at least half the population and probably more.’ Furthermore, Ethiopia’s unshakable image in the eyes of the world is that of a Christian nation. The recent U.S. Department of State classification of all the main Horn of Africa nations in the region, except Ethiopia, as either predominantly Arab or Muslim, also reinforces that image.
    One might also note the views of Muslim apologists who do not want the Americans helping Ethiopia precisely because it is seen as a "Christian" state, and this would offend Muslims, who apparently are free to wage Jihad, but we who are not Muslims must not extend aid to fellow non-Muslims lest this put a "religious" cast on what, of course, is already a religiously-prompted war.

    This absurd argument can be found in a piece that appeared in a Houston paper, of which an excerpt is given below:

    There are several reasons why aligning with Ethiopia on Somalia would be a bad idea that might even jeopardize the current coalition and undermine the long-term objectives of the war against global terrorism.

    First, such partnership with a nation that portrays itself as "a Christian" nation against a Muslim neighbor, which is a member of the Organization of Islamic Conference (OIC) and the Arab League, and based on little and tainted information, would give the war a religious color, thereby undermining President Bush's core message right from the start: that the war is against terrorism, not against Islam.

    Historically, Ethiopia viewed itself as a "Christian island surrounded by a Muslim sea." As a result, Islam has historically been perceived as a major threat to this country, and Ethiopian Muslims, though they constitute at least half of the population, have had an invisible presence in the country. A former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia wrote: 'Islam in Ethiopia has confined itself entirely to the spiritual realm. It has shown no interest in politics, though it is keenly aware that it comprises at least half the population and probably more.'

    Furthermore, Ethiopia's unshakable image in the eyes of the world is that of a Christian nation. The recent U.S. Department of State classification of all the main Horn of Africa nations in the region, except Ethiopia, as either predominantly Arab or Muslim, also reinforces that image. Apparently, this has nothing to do with being "predominantly Arab or Muslim."

    The transparent argument here is that Christians are not allowed to help fellow Christians lest the war be perceived, as it is declared to be by the Muslims in Somalia and by all the non-Somali Muslims who will help them, as a war between Muslims and Christians.

    About one thing the writer is correct: there are many Muslims in Ethiopia, and its Christian character is threatened by the missionary efforts, and the usual overbreeding by Muslims. That is another problem, and it is a problem that needs to be recognized and not ignored but dealt with, because it is in the interests of the entire non-Muslim world that Ethiopia remain a Christian country and not succumb to Islam. And whatever that takes—:including the transfer of some Muslims into Somalia—should be considered.

    Churchill Speaks of Islam

    Preaching death...

    "How dreadful are the curses which Mohammedanism lays on its votaries! Besides the fanatical frenzy, which is as dangerous in a man as hydrophobia in a dog, there is this fearful fatalistic apathy. The effects are apparent in many countries. Improvident habits, slovenly systems of agriculture, sluggish methods of commerce, and insecurity of property exist wherever the followers of the Prophet rule or live. A degraded sensualism deprives this life of its grace and refinement; the next of its dignity and sanctity. The fact that in Mohammedan law every woman must belong to some man as his absolute property—either as a child, a wife, or a concubine—must delay the final extinction of slavery until the faith of Islam has ceased to be a great power among men.

    "Individual Moslems may show splendid qualities. Thousands become the brave and loyal soldiers of the Queen; all know how to die; but the influence of the religion paralyses the social development of those who follow it. No stronger retrograde force exists in the world. Far from being moribund, Mohammedanism is a militant and proselytizing faith. It has already spread throughout Central Africa, raising fearless warriors at every step; and were it not that Christianity is sheltered in the strong arms of science—the science against which it had vainly struggled—the civilisation of modern Europe might fall, as fell the civilisation of ancient Rome."

    —Winston Churchill, 1899