Tag Archives: Kenya

WHY, OH WHY, OH WHY?

Fifty years ago, I became friends with a Muslim immigrant who had moved to the UK from India.   At the time, there were very few Muslims in the area where I lived.   I asked him what he could do as a Muslim in such a remote location.   He said it was the duty of every Muslim to help spread Islam wherever he goes.

Salman Rushdie, the writer persecuted for his book “Satanic Verses” and a former Muslim, speaking in New York over ten years ago (and broadcast on C-Span), said:   ‘When a Muslim moves from the Middle East to Detroit, he is not looking to take advantage of America’s freedoms to better himself; rather, he sees himself as part of the advance guard to spread Islam to America.”

When you hear a Muslim spokesperson on a television news program, keep the above in mind.

Yesterday, Wednesday, approximately 36 hours after the Manchester suicide bombing and following press reports that the perpetrator worshipped at the local Didsbury mosque, a trustee of the mosque addressed the press, distancing his mosque from the bombing, while at the same time inviting members of the public to come and join them, taking the opportunity to proselityze.

“The doors of the centre are open to all – they are open to all.    “Some media reports have reported that the bomber worked at the Manchester Islamic Centre – this is not true, he has never worked in this centre.                                                                                                                         “We are concerned about anti-Muslim acts ranging from verbal abuse to acts of criminal damage to mosques in the area and outside the area.”

As you can tell from the last sentence, he also took the opportunity to halt any anti-Muslim backlash that could follow the bombing that killed mostly young white girls attending a concert in the Manchester Arena.

The youngest was 8 years old.   As this is unlikely to be the last suicide bombing, we need to ask why we can no longer protect our children.

The suicide bomber was the son of Libyan refugees who fled to England in the 1990’s.

An Australian Muslim psychiatrist born in Bangladesh, writing about the Manchester terror incident, called Wednesday for restrictions on Muslim immigrants into the West. His article appeared in The Spectator Australia.   “Refugees have trouble integrating,” said Tanveer Ahmed.

The only solution to the problem of Islamic terror in western countries is to change immigration policies that have allowed this dangerous situation to develop over the last five decades.

The best commentary on the bombing was on the Gatestone Institute’s website.   Note the following three paragraphs.

  • “After hearing of the Manchester terrorist attack, politicians once more communicated their by now old-routine of “shock” and “grief” at the predictable outcome of their own policies.
  • “Most dumbfounding of all, German Chancellor Angela Merkel said that she was watching the developments in Manchester “with grief and horror” and that she found the attack “incomprehensible.”
  • “Every time a European leader publicly endorses Islam as a great faith, a “religion of peace,” or claims that violence in Islam is a “perversion of a great faith,” despite massive evidence to the contrary, they signal in the strongest way possible that with every devastating attack, the West is ripe for the taking.” (5/22/17 ‘Manchester:  Europe still “Shocked! Shocked!”’ by Judith Bergman)

Ms. Bergman is absolutely correct in writing that Monday’s horror was the result of political decisions taken in recent decades, particularly when it comes to immigration.   It’s almost fifty years since a famous British politician denounced the country’s immigration policies, saying the nation was “building up its own funeral pyre.”   Enoch Powell, MP, had to resign his position in the Conservative party for, as is now clear, speaking the truth.

Jonathan Ive, Apple’s Chief Design Officer, sensing the changing public mood on immigration, said Thursday that immigrants are vital for the UK economy.   This is meant to scare people into accepting more immigrants, some of whom will, inevitably, be Muslims; and some of those extremists.   What he should have called for is a ban on all abortions.   This will mean a higher birthrate and, in time, will provide those extra people for the British economy.

Immigration policy must change.  The fact remains, following the attack by Salman Abedi, a British born Libyan, that if his parents had not been allowed into the UK, 22 ethnic English (those whose ancestors have lived there for centuries) would still be alive; and over sixty others would not be dealing with potentially life-changing injuries.

It’s no good just increasing the numbers of police and army personnel on the streets, or spending more on intelligence gathering – until something is done about immigration it will all be fruitless.

And talking of intelligence, Mrs. May was correct in her response to US intelligence releasing information from England to the New York Times. Intelligence services need to be very careful about betraying one another’s confidences.   The arrangement between the US and UK dates back 75 years, to 1942.   Australia, Canada and New Zealand were included more recently.   These Anglophone nations need to be able to trust each other.   After a face-to-face discussion with Theresa May earlier today, President Trump has promised to find the source of the leaks and punish those responsible.

One final thought on Britain and terrorism:   the British have a history of compromising with terrorism, starting with Ireland a century ago and continuing until the Good Friday Agreement twenty years ago.   After World War II, Jewish terrorists blew up the King David Hotel in Jerusalem, an act that led to Britain withdrawing from the mandated territory; even though the British defeated the Mau Mau in Kenya, they gave the terrorists what they wanted; the same in Cyprus; in the 70’s they handed over Rhodesia to terrorists led by Robert Mugabe; and then worked on South Africa to hand over to Nelson Mandela, a terrorist leader who was responsible for the deaths of 200 people.   The lesson repeatedly learned is that terrorism works!

This time, the British are fighting for their homeland, the United Kingdom – will they once again compromise with the forces of evil?

——————————————————————————-

SOLVING CENTURIES-OLD PROBLEMS

Prior to visiting Jerusalem, Mr. Trump was in Saudi Arabia, the birthplace of Islam and home of one of its strictest sects, the Wahhabi sect of Islam.  Wahhabis believe that all non-believers are infidels and enemies and they have a history of violence directed at non-Muslims.  This includes September 11th, when 15 of the 19 hijackers had Saudi citizenship. Even the attack in Manchester has its origins in Wahhabism, by way of ISIS.

Saudis have helped finance terrorism around the world and continue to provide imams for taxpayer-funded chaplaincy programs in the US, as well as new mosques around the world.   The “help” Saudi Arabia promised Germany when the latter took in over a million refugees, was to offer to build 200 new mosques.

But oil, as we all know, is very important and the Saudis happen to be one of the world’s biggest producers and the country that determines the price of the black gold.

Saudi Arabia is also of strategic importance and an avowed enemy of Iran.  Their differences go back to the seventh century when Shia Islam broke away from the majority Sunni Islam.   Today, Saudi Arabia backs Sunnis throughout the Middle East against Shia Iran, Iraq, Syria and Lebanon.   Some wealthy Saudis have even backed ISIS, an organization that supports Sunnis against the Shia.

With a visit to the world’s three main religious centers, Saudi Arabia, Israel and the Vatican, President Trump is working on achieving a comprehensive Middle East peace, hoping to succeed where all his predecessors have failed.

He should remember the words of the Apostle Paul.   In his First Epistle to the Thessalonians, Paul looked ahead to the time prior to Christ’s Second Coming when there is much talk of world peace.  For when they say, “Peace and safety!” then sudden destruction comes upon them, as labor pains upon a pregnant woman.   And they shall not escape.”  (I Thess. 5:3).

The US has the power and influence to impose a peace treaty on the Israelis and Palestinians – but it won’t last.   The latter will ultimately not embrace peace until the country of Israel ceases to exist. How can you negotiate with people who are committed to your destruction?

————————————————————————

LACK OF KNOWLEDGE

A news item a few days ago revealed that attendance at Church of England services in the United Kingdom is increasing, after decades of decline.   This is attributed partly to the rise of English nationalism, as evidenced by Brexit.

Whatever the reasons, it might eventually help the BBC.

On Monday’s 9am broadcast on BBC World News, Lyse Doucet, a BBC journalist from Canada, was standing in front of the Wailing Wall in Jerusalem awaiting the arrival of President Trump and his wife.   As the president was delayed, Lyse Doucet recapped on Mr. & Mrs. Trump’s visit to what she described as the most important Christian religious site in the world, the Church of the Holy Sepulchre, which witnessed the “death, burial and reconstruction of Jesus Christ”.

I think she meant “resurrection.”

Which brings me to Little Emily, a 5-year-old girl featured in our local newspaper two or three years ago.   Her Baptist pastor was giving a sermon on Easter Sunday and asked the children what they knew about the resurrection. 5-year-old Emily raised her hand and kept saying:   “I know! I know!”

So the pastor asked her to tell the congregation what she knew about the resurrection.   Her reply made it into the local paper.   “If you experience a resurrection lasting more than four hours, you need to go to the doctor.”

Reportedly, the pastor was unable to finish his sermon.

Maybe one day Emily could work for the BBC, as their Religious Affairs Correspondent!

 

 

THE WEEK

Donald and Ted

There’s a lot of discussion about whether Senator Ted Cruz can run for president, due to the fact that he was born in Canada.   A few years ago, a similar concern was expressed about Barack Obama, with many convinced he was born in Kenya and therefore unqualified to run for president.

FWIW, when I went to the US Embassy in Ghana to register the births of our three children, all born outside of the United States between 1976 and 1981, I was informed that they had all the rights of any child born on American soil, “up to and including running for President of the United States.”

They were considered “natural born citizens” because their mother is an American citizen.

On this basis, President Obama, Senator Cruz and Senator John McCain all qualify even though they were born overseas, or maybe born overseas in the case of the current president.

——————————————————————————-

“In 2013 alone, 117,423 migrants from Muslim-majority countries were permanently resettled within the United States— having been given lawful permanent resident status.   Additionally in 2013, the United States voluntarily admitted an extra 122,921 temporary migrants from Muslim countries as foreign students and foreign workers as well as 39,932 refugees and asylees from Muslim countries.

————————————————————————————

Thus, twelve years after the September 11th hijackers were invited into the country on temporary visas, the US decided to admit 280,276 migrants from Muslim countries within a single fiscal year.” – Breitbart, Julia Haha, September 15th, 2015.

———————————————————————————-

President Obama took pains in his State of the Union speech Tuesday to warn Americans not to exaggerate the threat from terrorists,” notes a Journal editorial.   But after a spate of attacks from Paris to San Bernardino to Jakarta, what “Americans want from their next President is someone who will give them fewer reasons to fear being murdered while getting coffee.”   (WSJ, Morning Editorial Report, James Freeman, “Hillary and Ted’s Big Problem”)

——————————————————————————–

In Europe, reaction to the massive influx of refugees is increasing as people experience the full significance.   One thousand young men from North Africa and the Middle East congregated in the main public area around Cologne Cathedral on New Years Eve where dozens of German women were groped and sexually assaulted. Chancellor Merkel has condemned what happened and promised those convicted would be sent to their country of origin.   The anti-Muslim PEGIDA movement has been holding rallies and now has a British branch, committed to ending the growing Islamization of the West.

——————————————————————————–

Meanwhile, the 70-year-old ban on Hitler’s Mein Kampf (My Struggle) has been lifted in Germany and a new annotated version of the book has become available.  Sales have been greater than expected.   The new publication contains the full text of the original, with scholarly notes commenting on what was written.   It is hoped that this will turn people against right-wing ideas, but the law of unintended consequences may lead to a different outcome.

——————————————————————————-

Former British Prime Minister Tony Blair has called for a European Army, adding his voice in support of a development that is already taking place, with more European countries cooperating on defense.

The issue of Europe is uppermost on the minds of many in Britain at this time, with a referendum on future membership of the EU set for later this year.   Pro-EU politicians are trying to scare people by claiming that the EU has prevented conflict in Europe in recent decades. Fourteen leading British academics and historians have issued a statement saying that it is, in fact, NATO that has prevented major conflict in Europe since World War II.   This debate could intensify.   Many EU members are also members of NATO, which includes the US and Canada. But, if the EU successfully puts together its own powerful military force, the two organizations may go their separate ways.

——————————————————————————–

The British parliament is debating today, Monday, a petition signed by well over half a million people to ban Donald Trump from visiting the United Kingdom following his anti-Islamic comments.   A second pro-Trump petition has been signed by fewer people.   It seems like the Donald is dividing the UK as much as the US.   If the ban is approved by Members of the British Parliament, what will happen to the western alliance should he become president?

More immediately, what will happen to the $1 billion investment he promised Scotland?

Surprisingly, Piers Morgan came out in support of Mr. Trump on a popular British radio program.   The audience did not applaud.

The unanswered question here is why so many people on both sides of the Atlantic are determined to see a lot more Muslim immigrants arriving on their shores.   Their thinking is totally different from that of previous generations.

It’s going to be difficult to overcome political correctness on both sides of the Atlantic!

——————————————————————————-

Talking of the Atlantic, notably absent from the ocean right now are cargo ships – a sure sign the global economy is slowing.   For centuries, there have been ships crossing the ocean every single day. But right now there’s a lull.   Another sure sign of global inactivity is the fall in the oil price.   The price of oil is determined by supply and demand, as is everything else.   There’s more oil available now thanks to fracking and, from today, the lifting of sanctions on Iran. But there’s also less demand, with China’s economy weakening by the day and a deteriorating standard of living faced by most Americans, the world’s biggest consumers.

The head of the Royal Bank of Scotland warned all customers last week to get out of the Stock Market.   His warning sounded extreme, but what if he’s right?   We should know this week!

——————————————————————————-

Just remember, with all the uncertainty in global markets and in the Middle East, that Christians should not worry unduly about what’s going on. 34 Therefore do not worry about tomorrow, for tomorrow will worry about its own things.  Sufficient for the day is its own trouble.”  (Matthew 6:34)   The previous verse reminds us of where our primary focus should be at all times: “But seek first the Kingdom of God and His righteousness.”

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

QUEEN ELIZABETH LONGEST REIGNING MONARCH

Westminster Abbey's bells will peal, a flotilla will sail down the River Thames and a gun salute will ring out on Wednesday as Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest-serving monarch in British history.
Westminster Abbey’s bells will peal, a flotilla will sail down the River Thames and a gun salute will ring out on Wednesday as Queen Elizabeth II becomes the longest-serving monarch in British history.

Today at 5.30pm British Summer Time, Queen Elizabeth II became the longest reigning monarch in British history, overtaking the record set by her great-great-grandmother Queen Victoria.

She still has some way to go to pass the longest reigning European monarchs,   Austrian Emperor Franz Josef (1848-1916) and France’s Louis XIV (1643-1715).   However, the latter doesn’t really count as he was only five when he became “king,” meaning that his mother and Cardinal Mazarin ruled in his place.

Thailand’s current king was crowned in May 1950 so he’s been around even longer than the British monarch.

A PBS documentary on the queen aired last week.   The one-hour documentary is available on DVD.   It’s part of the “In their own words” occasional series.   There was one mistake in the program when a BBC broadcast announcing that “the king’s life draws peacefully to a close” was applied to her father, King George VI, who died in 1952.   The recording dates to January 1936 when his father, George V, was dying.   The queen’s father was found dead in bed on February 6th, 1952.   He had been out hunting the previous day. Elizabeth and her husband were in Kenya, on a tour of the empire, when he died.

The monarchy goes back over one thousand years.  It has evolved through the centuries into today’s constitutional monarchy.   The system has worked very well, giving Britain and the other Commonwealth realms (which include Canada, Australia and New Zealand) an unparalleled period of political stability, without which economic progress is difficult to achieve.

The very complimentary documentary highlighted Elizabeth’s role as constitutional monarch, using her influence rather than authority in chaperoning the country for over sixty years.   It’s been a time of unprecedented change, as was Victoria’s in the nineteenth century.

The program began with then Princess Elizabeth’s 21st birthday broadcast from Cape Town, South Africa.   In her own words she pledged herself to serve “the great imperial family to which we all belong,” a reference to the Empire and Commonwealth, which included South Africa.

Immediately after these words were shown on the documentary, a royal expert then added a comment about her lifelong service to Britain.

There’s a blind spot here, which obscures Britain’s incredible decline during her reign.   As she is a constitutional monarch, the blame for this decline rests with the politicians, especially the twelve British prime ministers who have served under her.   Her Canadian, Australian and New Zealand prime ministers can also share some of that responsibility.

The fact is that the British Empire has gone and its successor, the Commonwealth (the “British” was dropped 50 years ago) is no more than a shadow of what it was.   It may not even survive the queen’s passing.   The queen remains Head of State of 16 countries and has 138 million subjects.   She is also titular Head of the Commonwealth, an organization of 54 former colonies.   It remains to be seen if Prince Charles will be able to hold it all together after he succeeds his mother.

Sir John Major, her ninth British prime minister, said in the documentary that throughout all the changes of the last six decades, the queen has been the one “constant” in the country, giving a sense of continuity and stability during monumental and significant changes.   This is true, but it hides some painful realities.

The loss of empire saw a rapid decline in global power.   The country’s military capability is about one-twelfth of what it was at the beginning of her reign – and continues to decline even under a Conservative administration.   The queen’s international role remains at the core of British “soft power,” along with the BBC World Service and British aid.   This soft power has replaced the strong military power it used to have.

With the empire gone, Britain entered the European Common Market (now the European Union), which has progressively taken away the UK’s independence.   Under the EU’s freedom of movement rules, millions of people from other European countries have been able to move to Britain, changing the composition of the nation’s population.

Added to this has been mass immigration from Commonwealth countries like India and Pakistan.

The changes are so significant, it’s fair to say that the Great Britain she inherited in 1952 and the Great Britain of today are two very different countries.   It’s amusing to remember that in 1949, when she was Princess Elizabeth, she spoke out against the evils of divorce.   The nation would not take kindly to such comments today and the queen would not be qualified to speak on the subject anyway as her own family has seen a few divorces.

None of this detracts from the great accomplishments of Elizabeth II.   She has set an incredible example of service.   Her sense of duty is unsurpassed by anybody in any field.   In her own personal private life she has set a fine example, never putting a foot wrong.

In many ways, the world was a better place when the Queen ascended the throne on February 6th, 1952 (the Coronation was in June the following year).   At that time, she presided over the greatest empire in history.   As countries were given independence, all too often they were taken over by self-serving bad leaders who destroyed much of what Britain had accomplished, enriching themselves by stealing from their own people.   They were often from the lowest echelons of society, suddenly receiving absolute power, which they abused in every way.

I remember an incident 35 years ago at a time when Ghana, in West Africa, was going through a long period of political instability and economic chaos, I stopped to buy some food at the side of the road. When I opened my wallet, the lady who was selling me the items, saw a British bank note with the portrait of the queen on it.   The lady sighed and said:   “Ah, Queen Elizabeth.   She used to be our queen.   Now we have so many presidents, we cannot count them all. And we are in such a mess.   And England still has the queen.”   Stability is so important.

Two verses in the Book of Ecclesiastes illustrate this so well:

“Woe to you, O land, when your king is a child,
And your princes feast in the morning!
Blessed are you, O land, when your king is the son of nobles,
And your princes feast at the proper time —
For strength and not for drunkenness!”   (Eccl. 10:16-17.)

Britain has been greatly blessed with Elizabeth II as Queen.

As many are saying today:    “Long may she reign!”

OBAMA’S AFRICAN VISIT

Barack-Obama-Kenya

Only an African-American president could say it and get away with it!

President Obama on his visit to Kenya and Ethiopia was able to pointedly criticize African leaders for their corruption, human rights abuses, abuse of power and unwillingness to ever relinquish office.

Nobody could accuse him of racism.

Mr. Obama said things that have long needed to be said.

In contrast to his speeches on the Middle East, which are always filled with controversy and generally seem to make things worse, his speeches in Nairobi and Addis Ababa could only upset Africa’s corrupt leaders.   Ethiopian primary school teacher, Hikma Lemma had just one regret:  “He took too long to come.”   (“In Ethiopia, a cry for basic freedoms,” USA Today, July 28th.)

Things will not change quickly.  Indeed, they may not change at all, but it was still good to hear the president address these basic issues.

“Ethiopia jails the most journalists in Africa after Eritrea, according to the Committee to Protect Journalists.   Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch have condemned the country’s human rights record.   And in May, the State Department expressed concern over how the elections that month could result in all seats being won by the ruling party and its partners.   The department noted lingering ‘restrictions on civil society, media, opposition parties, and independent voices and views.” (ibid, USA Today).

At the start of his African trip, Mr. Obama spoke candidly to Kenyans, warning them against the twin evils of corruption and tribalism.  He could have addressed both issues in any of Africa’s 54 countries and his listeners would generally have applauded him. Only the leaders would have sat stone-faced and emotionless, probably wishing they had invited the Chinese leader to visit instead of the American president.   China, much more involved in Africa, does not comment on human rights abuses or corruption.

Boldly, Mr. Obama even addressed the persecution of gays in Africa. Most African governments deny that homosexuality even exists in their countries.   Certainly, all governments are guilty of a double standard in this regard.   At least one country has a prominently displayed sign in its airport warning “perverts and sexual deviants” to stay away, but saying nothing about the many prostitutes offering themselves in all the hotels.

In Addis Ababa, Mr. Obama addressed delegates of the African Union, whose headquarters are in Addis Ababa.   Introducing him was the Chairwoman of the AU, who did not always tell the truth. She criticized the United Nations because Africa is the only continent that does not have a permanent representative on the Security Council.   In actual fact, neither South America nor Australia are represented, either.

The US president expressed incredulity that any president would want to serve indefinitely.  He said he is looking forward to retirement and being able to go places without a massive security detail.  He said it was particularly difficult to understand when so many African presidents have so much money, another reference to corruption, enabling leaders to amass great wealth while their people go hungry.   Unwillingness to leave office is also linked to corruption – African presidents fear being investigated for corruption when they stand down.

Underscoring his points was the absence of the current AU Chairman Zimbabwe’s President Robert Mugabe, one of the richest men on earth.   Mr. Mugabe has been president of his country since independence in 1980, presiding over a number of rigged elections.

Mr. Obama mentioned, too, that Americans don’t want to keep on sending Africa free food, but would rather teach Africans how to farm more efficiently.   He could have added that the continent would do well to encourage western (white) farmers to remain in Africa, as their farming skills produce greater crop yields.   Zimbabwe was once the grain basket of Africa – it’s people now go hungry because Mr. Mugabe evicted the white farmers.

Western reporters were also guilty of not telling the whole truth. Much was said during coverage of the African visit about what America is doing for Africa, with some focus on a program to help those with AIDS, a disease that, in Africa, is transmitted almost exclusively by heterosexuals.   Not once did I hear mention of the fact that the program was the initiative of George W. Bush, Mr. Obama’s predecessor.   With this one single program, he did more for Africa than any other president.

It would be nice to think that, with this one single visit to Africa, President Obama might accomplish something else on a grand scale – the end of corruption, together with real progress toward greater democracy.   The two together would boost the living standards of the entire continent.

It remains to be seen whether his visit will make a difference.   But his candid comments were certainly a good start!

 

ADMINISTRATIVE BLINDNESS

 

Eleanor Clift

Eleanor Clift is an arch-liberal who writes for the “Daily Beast / Newsweek.”  She is also a regular contributor to the weekly political discussion on PBS, “McLaughlin Group.”

Eleanor has often made me think of the old story about Winston Churchill.   When the very liberal Lady Astor came up to him one time, she said:  “Mr Churchill, if I was your wife, I’d put poison in your coffee.”  Churchill’s response was:  “Lady Astor, if I was your husband, I’d drink it!”  If I were married to Eleanor, I would have drunk it a long time ago, and I’m not a coffee drinker.

It’s been six years now since the Obama Administration came to power.   During that time, I’ve not heard her utter one criticism of the president.   The other regular “liberal” on the program, Mort Zuckerman, who voted for the president in 2008, is quite capable of pointing out the president’s faults, but not Eleanor, oh no.

Eleanor and the president are in tandem.   While she is incapable of saying anything bad about the president, he seems equally incapable of saying anything bad about Islam.   He can’t even bring himself to say anything negative about Islamic militants.   He won’t even use the term, lest people associate Islam with extremism.

I’m not one of those people who think the president is a closet Muslim.   He is certainly sympathetic to Islam, which is dangerous at this time in the history of the West.   For what we need now is for a powerful personage on the world stage to speak plainly and bluntly to the Islamic world – to make it absolutely clear that extremism will not be tolerated and that Muslim leaders must unequivocally condemn acts of terror.

This applies to US, UK and French based Muslim leaders, imams in our mosques.   If they will not condemn acts of terror, then they should be expelled, deported from our countries to the Islamic country they came from.   Instead, many of these imams are actively recruiting young men and women to join ISIS.

A firm stand needs to be taken, but we are not going to see it from the US president or anybody in the Administration.   Rather, we are being constantly told that Islam is a religion of peace, that extremists have taken hold of a peaceful religion, that Christians did some awful things to Muslims during the Crusades, etc., etc.   The refusal to face up to reality is a hallmark of this Administration.

There has been no clear condemnation of the massacre of 148 students Thursday in Kenya by Muslim extremists, a death toll that is set to rise.

On the same day, we hear nothing but good things about the new deal with Muslim Iran, even as Iranians celebrated all night in the Iranian capital, Tehran, firmly believing that they have triumphed in their long struggle with the West.   Their perception is that Allah has given them victory over the Great Satan.   If they have won, how can we in the West claim victory?   The Israeli prime minister has made it clear that the agreement will ensure Iran has nuclear weapons, not stop them.   He has described the deal as a threat to Israel’s survival.

Of course, it’s not just the Administration that is at fault here.   Most members of the press and the average citizen have their heads in the sand.

The trouble is, eventually they will have to come up for air, when they just might have to focus on reality.

 

ISLAMOPHOBIA IS NOT SURPRISING

keep-calm-and-resist-islamophobia

One day last week BBC World Service Radio was promoting a documentary on “Islamophobia.”

Dictionary.com defines Islamophobia as “hatred or fear of Muslims or of their politics or culture.”

Unfortunately for the BBC, the advertized program was broadcast the day after the end of the siege of the Westgate Mall, in Nairobi, Kenya.  It’s highly likely that many listeners are Islamophobic.

It wasn’t just the upscale Nairobi Mall that contributed to a rise in the number of Islamophobes.  While the siege was going on, Islamic militants blew up a Protestant Christian church in Pakistan, killing over 80 people and injuring hundreds, including many children.  The attack on the Mall focused mostly on the rooftop car park where a children’s cooking show was being recorded.  Clearly, children will not be spared!

On the same day as the Mall attack, Iraq suffered one of its worst days of terrorism:

“On 21 September 2013, a series of car and suicide bombings struck the central and northern regions of Iraq, with the largest attack targeting a funeral in Sadr City, a predominantly Shi’ite neighborhood of Baghdad.  The attacks left at least 107 dead and more than 200 others injured.“  (Wikipedia)

Nearly a thousand civilians a month are dying in Iraq as Sunni Muslims target the majority Shi’ite population.

These attacks were carried out by Sunni Muslims affiliated with al-Qaeda.  Al-Shabab is also affiliated with the better-known international terror network.

Is there any wonder that millions of people suffer from Islamophobia?

Al-Shabab (“The Youth” in Arabic) is a militant Islamic group based in Somalia.  “The Shabab has proved impossible to dislodge from its southern Somali redoubts and has promised that the Westgate attack will be followed by others of its kind.”  (“The state of al-Qaeda,” The Economist, September 28th)

American news programs during the siege highlighted the Minneapolis connection.  The twin cities have the highest Somali population in the US.  Second generation Somalis are being recruited to join al-Shabab.  Claims that the Mall attackers included some Americans and one British woman have not been verified.

Typically, following a successful terror attack, Americans reacted blindly, flailing wildly to try to anticipate the next attack.  As a result, the Mall of America, the country’s largest mall, which happens to be in Minneapolis, is jacking up its security.  Al-Qaeda (and its Al-Shabab affiliate) is not dumb – any mall attack in the United States is more likely to be elsewhere.

People with long memories will remember when there were no Somalis in the US, prior to the 1965 change in immigration law.   Any hope of a reversal of the “new” law is not likely – neither party seems inclined to do anything which would have a positive effect in this area of counter-terrorism.  President Obama spoke recently of the need to rid Syria of chemical weapons so as to protect our children – a change in US immigration law would be more effective.

As with the 2008 terrorist attack in Mumbai, India, “non-Muslims were singled out for execution; hostages were taken to prolong the drama; well-trained fighters were able to hold off security forces for a considerable time; and, as at least six dead Britons bear witness, the killers picked a target with a Western clientele.  Such attacks are easier to plan and execute than blowing up airliners and more glamorous (for the fighters involved) than suicide bombings.  As a result Western intelligence agencies fear that they may become increasingly popular.”  (ibid. The Economist)

In May President Obama declared that al-Qaeda was on the “path to defeat.”  The reality is very different.  The Economist article contained the following disturbing observation made by a counter-terrorism intelligence expert:  “Tactically, we may have defeated the central leadership, but strategically, they are winning.”

Al-Qaeda’s goal remains the same – the establishment of an Islamic caliphate across the Islamic world subject to sharia law.  Their vision allows no place for western influence.

Indeed, a few days after the Mall attack, an agricultural school in northern Nigeria was attacked by Boko Haram.  Dozens of young students were killed while they slept.  Boko Haram means “western education is a sin.”  The movement is another affiliate of al-Qaeda and has staged a number of attacks in Nigeria in recent years.

Al-Qaeda and its affiliates are concentrating right now on soft targets in their own backyard.  But if they are to achieve their goal of an Islamic Caliphate and expel non-Muslims they will have to switch their tactics and concentrate more on western countries.

They will be helped in this by second generation Muslims whose parents immigrated to the West in recent decades and whose hatred of the countries that took them in knows no bounds.

When Jesus Christ was asked by His disciples, “what will be the sign of your coming and of the end of the age?” (Matt 24:3)  He first warned them of false religion, followed by “wars and rumors of wars.” (verses 4-6)  This is where we are now.

False religion is not new.  What is fairly new is the modern rise of Islam, once again pushing against the West as it has done periodically throughout history.  There will no doubt be more attacks on malls, churches and schools.  At some point, the West will hit back – and then we will see the fulfillment of the prophesied end-time events.

Islamophobia is not surprising.  What is surprising is that there has been no backlash as a result of all the terrorist attacks in recent years.  Now there’s a good program idea for the BBC!

APOLOGY, EMPIRE AND THE QUEEN

Diamond Jubilee - Carriage Procession And Balcony Appearance

A Service of Thanksgiving was held in Britain’s Westminster Abbey on Tuesday, June 4th, in commemoration of the Queen’s coronation, held sixty years earlier on June 2nd, 1953.  That wasn’t when she became queen – she ascended to the throne on the death of her father, King George VI, sixteen months earlier, on February 6th, 1952.

Interestingly, she was in Kenya Colony at the time she received the news of her father’s death.  From that very moment she was Queen over what was still the biggest empire in the world.

Kenya played a role again during the week of the sixtieth anniversary.  The same year that Queen Elizabeth II became the British monarch, the Mau Mau uprising began in the colony.  It was largely suppressed by British and Kenyan troops by 1956 but didn’t fully end until 1960.

The Mau Mau was a Kikuyu rebellion.  In other words, one tribe rebelled.  Even then, not all Kikuyu supported the uprising, as anti-Mau Mau elements amongst the Kikuyu helped the British suppress the revolt, a revolt that failed to gain popular support.

Almost sixty years later, when few people alive remember the events of the 1950’s, the British government has decided to apologize for British actions at the time and is to give 20 million pounds compensation to former Mau Mau fighters.  It’s highly likely that most of this money will be diverted by Kenyan government officials, as is usually the case in Kenya.

So, what next?  Should the British apologize for killing members of the Continental Army in the Revolutionary War?

There’s an American connection in the apology made last week – President Obama’s father was a Kenyan and also a member of the Mau Mau.  Apparently, pressure was applied from the other side of the Atlantic.

It’s amazing how our leaders are so ignorant of history, even fairly recent history.  In case one of them may stumble across this blog, let me make it clear – this was not a popular uprising.  There was no great suppression of freedom and there have been far worse abuses of human rights since independence in 1963.  It should be noted that the new President of Kenya, Uhuru Kenyatta, has been charged with human rights abuses by the International Court at The Hague.  This is Africa we’re talking about, not the English Home Counties!

This comes down to white guilt, the never-ending left-wing apologia for empire that goes back to the sixties.  Whereas Britons from previous generations lauded the accomplishments of the British Empire, the opposite has been the case since the advent of political correctness in the 1960’s.

I was thinking about this on Thursday evening, just two days after the Thanksgiving service was held.  My wife and I were watching a British movie on television called “Zarak,” made in 1957.  It was an awful movie, badly made, with a predictable plot.  But it was interesting from an historical perspective.  The movie was about a revolt against British colonial rule in India in the late 1800’s.  The movie was made ten years after India’s independence but it was still pro-British.  The rebels were the bad guys!

So, when did perceptions of Empire change?

At the Queen’s coronation, she was crowned as Queen of each of her dominions, the independent nations within the Empire – Australia, Canada, New Zealand, the Union of South Africa, Ceylon and Pakistan.  She was also given the title “Head of the Commonwealth” which included all the above nations and the Republic of India (India had become a republic three years earlier).  The rest of the empire was still ruled from London.  Her title to cover all those 50+ territories was “her other realms and territories,” almost all of which are now fully independent.

It was in the 1960’s that attitudes to Empire changed, though not amongst the ordinary people.  It became fashionable amongst academics and other intellectuals to bash the Empire, to make fun of it, to equate it with the crueler empires in history, even to boldly state the Empire was a bad thing.  After the death of Sir Winston Churchill, a great Empire loyalist, in 1965, there was no restraint.  Churchill and the Empire both played major roles in winning the Second World War, without which there would be no freedom for these people to even debate these issues.

In a brief televised debate after the decision to apologize to the Mau Mau, Sir Max Hastings, a prominent British military historian, pointed out the pitfalls of trying to determine anything after sixty years.  His Empire-bashing opponent on the program (whose name was unfamiliar) kept on rudely interrupting everything he said but, when asked what other “atrocities” Britain could be charged with, found it difficult to come up with anything specific, mumbling something about Aden and Diego Garcia.

This is not to say that Britain did not make mistakes but, compared to other nations, her record was a very good one.

Remembering the Mau Mau is also a reminder that Britain was once a great military power.  In fact, at the time of the Queen’s ascension, it was more than ten times the military power it is today.  Successive British governments have chosen to cut defense expenditure while increasing spending on public health care.  The present Conservative led coalition cut military expenditure by 8% in its recent austerity plan, while leaving healthcare and foreign aid alone.  This is a continuation of a policy that emphasizes “soft power” over military power.

Apologizing to Kenya and sending 20 million pounds ($30 million) their way is an example of this.  No doubt others will now start demanding apologies for perceived mistakes of the past.

It’s difficult to see how later generations can be held responsible for the supposed mistakes of their ancestors.  Perhaps the British can demand reparations from Rome? After all, they ruled England for almost 400 years, longer than Britain ruled any of her colonies!  But you can’t expect politicians to know that!