All I know the US and the British want Mugabe out of power . To them they see dictator. They want to put their puppet who even embarrased me when asked on ABC how many people died. His answer I think 80. I f you are a leader you should know what is happenning on the ground. Secondly how can you hide at Dutch embassy the people who enslaved us. Could he not find refuge at other African embassies. If any one wants to kill him they could have killed him long back. How come he went back to his house and have a press conference. If Morgan becomes the president he will take us 34 years back of our independence.

Pastor

First of all, you need to cut the introductory article down some. It is too long. You also sermonize heavily in this blog and you are carrying the religious aspect even higher.

My comment on all of this is if you want to bring God into almost all aspects of the conversation then we are limited when it comes to opinions.

How can you be so sure that it is God operating if Barack wins and Hillary loses. Did God operate when Bush won and Gore and Kerry were defeated. Our ways are not God's ways and our thoughts are not God's thoughts. Just as we have a Bush and we may get an Obama,nobody can attach God to either of those candidates.

You must study these subjects closer before you go public; and run these blogs by somebody before it gets to us. I will not say what God has or is doing because I don't know. I doubt very very seriously if you know.

I will debate on the facts as they become available to me and spa with the best of them on that info. But to bring God into these discussions and declare this is God doing whatever is no longer a debate. Let us keep the sermons in church or call these discussions sermons from Pastor.

john marshall

Mugabe by far is Africa's only existing leader with muscle to stand up against evil. You read the bible well but if you scrutinize it, it is very clear about the devil and evil itself. 1. The thief comes in the night to plunder and destroy and kill. 2. the devil is a liar from the beginning. 3. the wolves come dressed in sheepskin(disguise) 4. you shall see them by the fruits they bear..

All the statements above are overhshadwoed with the lie that the devil is invisible when we actually deal with him in physical.

Our people (Africans) are perishing because of lack of knowledge in this area and many more. Lucifer is GOD because he created his own species called mankind (sheepskin dressing folks or white people) . Our creator created Blackman as Humanbeings in his likeness. Lucifer did the same and all white people are deceivers just like their father lucifer. They come not to bring peace, but to divide, plunder, destroy the earth, steal and create weapons of intimidation and lie some more about everything. They remove the laws of our creator that are just and impose their evil laws that serve no human purpose.

Basically, what I'm saying is that, the children of the creator (black people) deal with a physical children of evil on daily basis. The only weakness is that we are very welcoming and polite to the demons while the demons destroy everything thats good. They blind us with their creation (bling bling). The worst proganda being the bible written and changed to their will and then threaten anyone who alters it as if God wrote the book. James, so called King of England is one of the conspirators to the bible along with many of them before him. Remember they are the same people who crucified Jesus. The same people who enslaved you. The same people under whose laws you suffer. The same people who have discredited our Creators work. They change seeds and mix animals breeding and virtually digging the earth, smog, war, nuclear weapons, and the list of destruction methods is endless, in addition to creating HIV/AIDS and other diseases. Black people wake up.

Let a leader like Mugabe arise for Africa. If Mugabe behaved like Amini and all the leaders of Africa gained some conscious and repelled every demon out of Africa, the children of the Great Creator will begin to see salvation come quickly. Nothing personal. Just truth.

Zimbabwe Attack on Dirty Tricks Deflated UK Initiative at UN
25 Jun 2008
June 25 (LPAC)--Zimbabwes permanent representative to the UN, Ambassador Boniface Chidyausiku, neutralized a British-initiated special meeting of the UN Security Council June 23 when he told the SC meeting "that there have been numerous cases of MDC-T supporters going around dressed in Zanu-PF regalia and beating up people. [Movement for Democratic Change-T is the party of opposition leader Morgan Tsvangirai, and ZANU-PF is the party of President Robert Mugabe].

"This is an outdated strategy used by the Selous Scouts during the liberation struggle," Chidyausiku said, "and with the predominance of Selous Scouts in the MDC-T, it is obvious what is going on." The similarity of the campaign of violence in Zimbabwe during this election period, to the modus operandi of the Selous Scouts during the fight for liberation, was made by LPAC in a release yesterday. Chidyausiku's statement was published in a {Zimbabwe Herald} article that was posted to the internet by allafrica.com today.

The Selous Scouts were set up in Zimbabwe in the early 1970s by a Rhodesian-born veteran of the British SAS special forces in Malaya, where similar tactics were used in an attempt to destroy nationalist forces fighting the British empire, for independence.

Britain was seeking to have the Security Council pass a resolution declaring the run-off election was illegitimate, and Mugabe, without a run-off, lacks credibility, and to declare that Tsvangirai should be made President.

As a result of the submissions by Chidyausiku and the South African ambassador, the 15-member Security Council decided that it would be legally improper to halt the run-off and install the British-backed Tsvangirai to replace Mugabe, without a run-off, as the British had wanted.

Despite their failure at the UN, the British continue to attempt to whip up a frenzy about Zimbabwe, using Tsvangirai's withdrawal from the run-off (although it is too late to take his name off the ballot), and his supposed seeking of refuge in the Dutch embassy (though reports in Zimbabwe indicate that he is going in and out of the embassy to conduct his various activities, as a pretext for whipping up a propaganda drive to further raise the pressure against Zimbabwe. The British and Dutch are already talking about preparing the use of their respective militaries to evacuate British and Dutch nationals, a development which would further escalate the aura of crisis.

Tsvangirai today called for: the UN to actively isolate the Zimbabwe government; for a military force to be sent to Zimbabwe; and for a new election to be held, with election monitors from the UN and African Union. British Prime Minister Gordon Brown is calling for more severe sanctions, which could be used to force British banks and companies dealing with Zimbabwe to cut off their activities, making it more difficult for Zimbabwe, which has been hit with eight years of economic warfare, to survive.

Paul Wolfowitz, the disgraced former president of the World Bank, today in the {Wall Street Journal}, encouraged the anti-Mugabe forces in Zimbabwe by proposing an offer to make life easy for the country if Mugabe were induced to step down. He proposed providing a face-saving way to leave, after which debt relief and aid would be offered to the country, which, under Mugabe has been subjected to protracted economic warfare because the Zanu-PF government would not go along with the policies of globalization and free trade.

Marshal,

If your opinion is limited by God being in the mix than that is a good thing. I know that God is in the mix by the initial criteria that I mentioned. God does not fail. If God sends you on a mission the the provisions to accomplish the mission are provided. God uses things that are counter to what you want to mold your behavior so you can be bless with what God wants for you. Yes God was operating when Bush won and Kerry and Gore lost. In my humble opinion, if God had not let Bush win then we would not have Barack now. God's ways are not our ways. It is impossible to understand the infinity that God respresents. Get self out of the way. God knows what God is doing. It is time for a change. Yes we can!! Yes we Will. May God continue to order our steps and give us the courage to follow the orders. Blessings to you.

Chitunya: If Morgan were to operate in America as he is operating for Britain then in America he would be tried for treason, found guilty. His penalty would be capital. The west's policy is not based on the fairness of God but is based on the interest of sustaining white supremacy. It uses its press as a psychological tool to try and mold public opinion. Since the creation of the internet the job has become much harder. This blog is a tool to set the record straight. The key to what is right is to treat your neighbor as you want to be treated. If all political policy is based on this commandment then the hate in the world be decreased and the love would increase abundantly. May the God of the righteous continue to order our steps.

Lumumba,
I don't understand the seemingly universal hatred of white people. I myself have not knowingly done anything against my own ethics and morals or "God created us all equal." I don't personally believe in the devil or hell. Due to this, a few "friends" have told me that I am doomed to go there. I certainly don't cnsider myself to be the spawn of the devil. When I was in grade school and learned of the disgusting injustices that this country has founded itself upon, I cried openly. First, the White people committed genocide against the Native Peoples and stole the land. Then they kidnapped African people and treated these people as property. It's all so inhumane, immoral, and unethical. I feel such shame. And yet I read what you wrote and you compare me to the devil? I just don't see that as being right. It seems to be right along the lines of what Whites have done to Native Americans and Africans in the past, which doesn't make it right; that makes it disgusting. I don't find it reasonable to put down any group of people based on race, ethnicity, gender, religion, etc. Take each person as they come. What makes ME deserving of hell?

before getting off on the wrong foot, I have not compared white folk to the devil. Second, if its universal, hatred, I can't help with that. What I have stated is truth as not told about who comes from where(creation). The angels lost their place in heaven because of rebellion and the children of the rebelling angels (white folks, Chinese and all who hate black folk) live here as the bible straight forward says "woe to earth because the rebelling angel, the deceiver is among them. Further, it says, you will see them by the fruits they bare. Well... The fruits are being shown over time and you can read history books of who is dome what on earth and decide for yourself. If there was any good white person, they were there to pacify the people who are hurt and put band-aids.... not to heal but to oppress retaliation. That is the deceiving technique while they all work as one with one agenda... to destroy our inheritance, earth.

With all due respect, the concept of a personal, all-powerful deity who gets the credit for the "good" but is absolved when it comes to the "bad", escapes my sense of logic.

If there were a deity such as this as you suggest, then I attribute him with an ego the size of the universe and a sense of decency so microscopic as not to be detected.
I cannot abide by the old adage, "god works in mysterious ways!"
I am mystified by the number of people who "believe" and more perplexing, who accept a deity who just lets sh..t happen to teach lessons.

I only know that we are. I also know that I am vexed by those individuals who give credit for good to some nebulous entity in the ether yet justify its' seemingly callous acceptance of horrific events as "god's will".
I think it is important to give Barack Obama the credit for his incredible appeal to so many in our nation. He was raised in environemts of diversity where he learned to respect himself and others. He has been able to help Americans see their strengths, yet in addition, he has the remarkable skill of highlighting our weaknesses while offering hope that we can try to right those wrongs and be the people we believed we were. His vision is broad and his values reflect what should be rather than what has been.
I hope that we can have discussions based on what can be achieved by making good choices rather than hoping we hit god's lottery and he likes Americans better than Iraqi's or Iranians or whoever the enemy of the decade turns out to be.
I hope that I've not offended you by being blunt. It is just so frustrating to know that thocratic notions still pervade in place of reason and rationale.

Lumumba,

Your response to "cracker" is very interesting. You would help us all tremendously if you would cite the scripture from which you are quoting. You write "The angels lost their place in heaven because of rebellion and the children of the rebelling angels (white folks, Chinese and all who hate black folk) live here as the bible straight forward says "woe to earth because the rebelling angel, the deceiver is among them. Further, it says, you will see them by the fruits they bare." Where in scripture are you quoting and how from that scripture do you get that "white folks, Chinese and all who hate black folks" is to who the scripture is referring? I would be interested in knowing.

With that being said, Cracker, it appears that you are saying that just because you did not personally do any of the affliction that was done by white people, and you abhor the behavior therefore, you should not be held responsible. I wish it were so easy to absolve you because of your personal behavior. Although we can accept your lack of personal responsibility, still just because you are white you have benefitted from other whites' dispicable behavior. America does not ask a white man if he supported American policy or not. They look at him being white. If you are white in America then there is a priviledge that comes with that whiteness. To overcome this unfair advantage you must reject the advantage and work for a change. You must let the world know there is a difference between American policy and what American people think. In my opinion, white people are not all bad, but there is not a white person who has not benefitted from the wrong that has been done in the world by white people. If you are against this wrong you must work to correct it. My question is are you willing to do so?

Dee Anne, my sister,

Belief in God does not take the place of reason. The God I serve wants only the best for you. However, he does allow us to make our own choices. It is through our choices that we gain from the good that God wants from us. God allows all that happens. This is not to say we have no control over what happens. In fact, through our choices we have more control than what we act like we know. The Bible tells us quite clearly "Get wisdom, get understanding:forget it not; (Proverbs 4:5) Wisdom is the principal thing; therefore get wisdom; and with all the getting get understanding (Proverbs 4:7). Wisdom is the entity yielded by knowledge applied. Once you apply knowledge you know its strength and weaknesses. At this point you have wisdom because you know what knowledge will do without having to put it practice. You don't have to touch fire to know it is hot. Knowing that fire is hot without touching it is wisdom. You have to discern whether to believe if you don't understand. And there is sometimes that you believe when you don't understand. A good example is I believe that the sun is in the sky, but I would be tellin an untruth if I stated i know how it got there. I believe because i see it almost every day, but I don't understand how it got there. That being said, I am very careful to embrace that which I don't understand. To do so is the first step to being brainwashed. Brainwashing is getting someone to accept a falsehood as being true. Just as bad, in my opinion, is those who are given an understanding, but don't really understand what's going on. This is deception. To make something appear true that is not true. To the degree that one can get one to accept the deception is to the degree that one can brainwash one. We find so much deception in American policy. The deception machine is running at full speed ahead concerning the developments in Zimbabwe. We cannot use the Western press as our only tool to determine what is really happening on the ground in Zimbabwe. America has been know to lie, cheat, steal and use the mass media to help cover up the lying, cheating and stealing. There were no weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Mugabe is representing the will of the Zimbabwean people. Morgan is a tool of the western powers. More sanctions on Zimbabwe, which Bush is calling for, is not the solution. More sanctions causes innocent men, women and children to suffer and even die. Sanctions are not the solution. That does not mean there is not a solution to bring unity and peace to Zimbabwe. I pray that this is what Barack is saying from which there needs to be a change. It is time for a change. Yes we can. Yes we will. May God of wisdom and understanding continue to guide our steps so we make good choices and receive all the good that God wants for us.

Rev. Ajabu,

Thank you for your message; I have nothing but the utmost respect for your opinions, and I must say that I agree with many parts of your post. Yes, the Bush administration should be condemned for starting the Iraq War, yes, John McCain will likely turn out to continue the same failed policies, and yes, I believe that Barack Obama is the best presidential candidate to come around in a long time.

Yet, I stagger in confusion at your insistence that some sort of God is (or should be) intertwined with politics, for history has shown the peril of doing so. Logical actions should be taken and reasonable decisions should be made on their own merit, not on what we think 'God would want.' The reason for this is simple. Economists can study taxes; sociologists can study marriage; geologists can study evolution. Scientists of all sorts can study the issues surrounding a policy, but no one can scientifically determine whether a God would want John McCain or Barack Obama to be president.

If your answer is that we need merely to look at the Bible, then I challenge you to examine what the Bible says about HIV/AIDS, hyperinflation, climate change, net neutrality, or stem cell research. These are all consequential issues of the day, and there is far from a consensus on what to do about them. The actions we do take, though, will be influenced strongly by who is president. Barack Obama is not the Democratic nominee simply because God decided he should be, Reverend. That is an insult to the hard work done by the hundreds of members and supporters of his campaign. It also discounts the Senator's ability to eloquently describe his vision for the future while also not ignoring the stark truth that our nation is in trouble--a difficult line to walk for most politicians. Obama is the nominee because his supporters agree with what he wants to do about the problems I mentioned above.

If God was truly running the show, I doubt he would have made George W Bush the president, twice, only to then change his mind. Or was he, too, swayed by Bush's insistence that Iraq had weapons of mass destruction?

--Eoban

The proletarians have nothing to lose but their chains. They have a world to win.

Eoban,

Thank you for your thoughtful response. In your response you state "I stagger in confusion at your insistence that some sort of God is (or should be) intertwined with politics, for history has shown the peril of doing so. Logical actions should be taken and reasonable decisions should be made on their own merit, not on what we think 'God would want.'" This is where we differ. The God I serve is involved in all aspects of life. This does not mean that you put logic and reason out of the picture. If you don't understand what you are doing then I would advise you to not do it. I truly try to line up my interest with what God would have me to do. The criteria for determining how God would have me to behave is listed above in the article. If I just use logic, which for most people is protracted toward self gratification, then what gratifies me quite possibly could take me outside the will of God. History shows that, obviously, for white people it has been gratifying for them to project themselves as the supreme humans on the face of the earth. They have even taken the Christian belief that Jesus is God in human form on the earth and made this human a white man. No one living really knows how Jesus physically appeared. However from Revelations 1:15 which describes Jesus' feet to look like "fine brass, as if they burned in a furnace . . ." Brass is brownish in its natural color. Burn anything and the common denominator of the burning is carbon. Carbon is black as the ace of spade if not blacker. This description of Jesus' feet would have any reasonalble man or woman to conclude that Jesus was anything but a white man. Yet, if you go to the Sistine Chapel, and many churches around the world the depiction of Jesus is white. Lord help us today. This is deception and an attempt by white people to make all people to believe that white men are closer to God than any of the human species. This lying has got to stop.

To say that God is in the mix is not to omit or ignore the choices that are being made by Senator Obama or the people that are supporting his effort. The Senator and his supporters' good decisions does not take God out of the mix. In my humble opinion, it shows that God is in the mix. God wants what is good for us. However, through our choices we can get other than what God wants for us.

Yes, God was even in the mix when George Bush got selected twice. Because of our bad decisions not to contest his illigimate selection, notice I'm saying selection, not election, God allowed Bush to be president twice. God wasn't fooled. We were the one's to accept the foolishness when we should have rebelled against the lies being told. bush is trying to help Britain pull off the same type of theft in Zimbabwe. However, what man means for evil, God means for good. Because Bush twice stole the election it created the environment that makes people ready for a change. McCain is more of the same. It is time for a change. Yes we can. Yes we will. May the change be within the will of God that promotes truth, justice and will make us treat our neighbors like we want to be treated. God bless you and may the God of rightousness continue to order your steps and your choices.

Thank you for the thoughtful message.

Rev. Ajabu,
I have wrestled with being ashamed of being white. I have found that shame gets me nowhere and certainly does nothing for anyone else. You ask a good question! I have asked myself different variations of that same question many times. I strive to get beyond race but it's always there. The younger generations don't see race as much as older generations do. I see that as positive. I'm an extremely left-leaning Democrat and have been working every spare minute for Obama's campaign. Some people have asked me why and the answer is simple- because it's the right thing to do! I have run into racist comments from relatives and I argue with them and come away feeling sick to my stomach. I'm out there doing voter registration where oftentimes I'm a minority. I'm also active in fighting against the genocide in Darfur. Obama and Darfur are 2 of my 3 big things about which I feel passionately and neither one have to do with race. Both have to do with morals and ethics.

I understand oppression much better than you probably would guess. As a woman I understand this. As a person who has an illness that is poorly understood and usually not covered by insurance companies, I understand this. As a mother of a child who has a disability, I understand this. As a low-income person, I understand this.

Yes, I'm sure I have benefitted from American Policy. Actually, we all have since the Europeans stole this land from the Native Peoples. We really don't have the right to be where we are at this very moment. But how do we fix this huge injustice? My son has some magical ideas about all of it. He plans to buy California when he's an adult and give it back to the Native Americans. He wants to destroy all of the concrete, buildings, and other modernization and try to brng the land back to natural. Personally, I have visions of the whites being stuck on reservations with lousy food, bad medical care, etc. That would seem more fair. Of course, I don't want to live that way, but that is what actually seems fair given the terrible history, and I would willingly go.

Zimbabwe Africa UK USA
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tsvangirai confirms US, UK's regime change agenda
Posted: 06/30
From: MNN

''I am heartened by the fact that some African leaders are now working with the MDC towards finding a lasting solution to the Zimbabwe crisis,'' Morgan Tsvangirai told journalists, observers and diplomats after emerging from his hideout at the Dutch embassy for the second time in two days.

by Herald Reporter
(The Herald)

MDC-T leader Morgan Tsvangirai yesterday confirmed some African leaders were working with his party, Britain and the United States to effect illegal regime change in Zimbabwe.

He made the confirmation hardly a day after President Mugabe warned some African countries not to be used by Britain and its Western allies in the regime change agenda in Zimbabwe.

President Mugabe said some African countries, including those in Sadc were issuing reckless statements to discredit yesterday’s presidential election run-off saying other countries’ elections were held in worse conditions than in Zimbabwe.

"I am heartened by the fact that some African leaders are now working with the MDC towards finding a lasting solution to the Zimbabwe crisis," Tsvangirai told journalists, observers and diplomats after emerging from his hideout at the Dutch embassy for the second time in two days.

British Prime Minister Gordon Brown has been putting pressure on some African leaders, notably Zambian president Levy Mwanawasa, to put their foot down on Zimbabwe.

Mwanawasa recently admitted to succumbing to such pressure when he announced a Sadc summit through the western media to discuss Zimbabwe’s elections, which had still not been concluded.

The presidential election run-off went ahead yesterday after the Zimbabwe Electoral Commission ruled that Tsvangirai’s purported withdrawal had among other reasons, been filed out of time.

http://www.herald.co.zw

I read your interesting blog and the comments following it. The view that God is actively involved in man's activities here on earth, is widely debated as you are probably aware. Some quote Biblical verses like Dan. 4:25,35, to support this view, while others support a view of a more benign God who gives man the tools of reason, conscience etc., and let's him choose to do good or evil. I have a hard time seeing any Godly endorsement of Bush, except perhaps, as His agent of punishment on America for her historical sins against the native Americans, enslaved Africans and subsequent worldwide mayhem under a bogus theory of Manifest Destiny. Certainly the terrible state of our bankrupt economy, crumbling infrastructure, disastrous foreign entanglements, etc. might appear to some, to be Divine judgment in action. Whether this is so or not, remains to be seen. I too, am willing to support Obama, but I only see him as a compromise, due to the absence of a true progressive candidate who would be my preferred choice to support. If he is ordained by God to be president, then so be it.

Obama got the nod because George Soros, not God, is backing him with unlimited funds. It should be interesting to see if he picks Hillary as his VP. Any comments about that?

At this point it would not be a good move for Obama to pick Hillary as his VP. Go to the archives and read the article "Regan/Bush Informing OBama's Vice President" to understand my reasons for my position.

Farrakhan is not the Problem
By TIM WISE
The more things change, the more they stay the same.
Thirteen years ago, when I first started out on the lecture circuit, speaking about the issue of racism, it seemed as though everywhere I went, someone wanted to know my opinion of Louis Farrakhan.
To some extent, this was to be expected, I suppose. It was 1995, after all, and Farrakhan had just put together the Million Man March in DC. So when race came up, that, and sadly, the OJ Simpson trial and verdict seemed to be the two templates onto which white folks in particular would graft their racial anxieties.
Though OJ has long since faded as a matter of conversation among most, discussion of Farrakhan never seems to end. As controversy has erupted regarding comments made by Barack Obama's former pastor, the Rev. Jeremiah Wright, Wright's occasional words of praise for Farrakhan have caused many to suggest that he, and by extension, Obama, are somehow tainted. Wright, we are to believe, is forever compromised as a legitimate commentator on issues of race and even as a man of God. And why? In large part because he has noted two basic truths that are pretty hard to dispute: first, that Farrakhan is an important voice in black America--important in the sense that millions of black folks are interested in what he has to say--and second, that he is someone whose community work with young black men has been constructive where many other efforts to reach them have failed. Although Wright has never indicated that he agrees with the more extreme comments made by the Minister over the past two-and-a-half decades (and indeed, much of Wright's own ministry and approach to issues of race, gender and sexuality suggests profound disagreements with Farrakhan on these matters), his unwillingness to condemn the Nation of Islam leader is used to write him off as an extremist and a bigot.
As someone who is Jewish, I am expected to join in this chorus, apparently. Thus, the repeated and regular queries dating back at least fifteen years from other Jewish folks or from whites generally, asking why it is that I have never, in all of my years as an antiracist activist, turned my pen (or at least my computer keyboard) on Farrakhan.
But the simple truth is, Louis Farrakhan is not the problem when it comes to racism, sexism or heterosexism in this country; nor is he any real threat to Jews as Jews, or whites as whites, contrary to popular mythology.
Much as Muhammad Ali once famously noted that no member of the Vietcong had ever referred to him by a common racial slur, as a way to explain his lack of enthusiasm for fighting in Southeast Asia, I must point out that no member of the Nation of Islam ever told me when I was growing up that I was going to hell, that my soul was an empty vessel, or that I would burn in a lake of fire for all eternity, just like all of my Jewish ancestors, because we had rejected God. The folks who did that were white Christians: teachers, preachers, other kids, and co-workers--all of them spiritual terrorists and religious bigots of the first order. And not one of them was selling a bean pie on the corner, or copies of The Final Call. Yet, we as Jews make nice with Christians just like that, who smile while they condemn us, whose sense of spiritual superiority apparently causes us no alarm, nor spurs us to denounce them for their chauvinism, while the Nation of Islam's occasional episodes of anti-Jewish sentiment send us into fits of apoplexy.
But can we get real for a moment? What ability does Farrakhan have to do me any harm, or any Jew for that matter? When was the last time those of us who are Jewish had to worry about whether or not our Farrakhan-following employer was going to discriminate against us? Or whether our Fruit of Islam loan officer was going to turn us down for a mortgage? Or whether our Black Muslim landlord was going to screw us out of a rent deposit because of some anti-Jewish feelings, conjured up by reading the Nation's screed on Jewish involvement in the slave trade? The answer, of course, is never. If anything, members of the Nation, or black folks in general, have a much greater likelihood of being the victims of discrimination at our hands--the hands of a Jewish employer, banker or landlord, and certainly a white one, Jewish or not--than we'll ever have at theirs. White and/or Jewish bias against Nation members, either as blacks or Muslims or both, is more likely to restrict their opportunities than even the most advanced black bigotry is capable of doing to us. That's because bias alone is never sufficient to do much harm. Without some kind of institutional power to back up that bias, even the most unhinged black racism or anti-Jewish bigotry is pretty impotent.
Oh sure, a black Muslim could attack me on the streets I suppose, either because of my whiteness or my Jewishness, so in that sense, the potential for such a person to harm me exists. But how many of us who are Jews have really been attacked by members of the Nation of Islam? Not only in absolute terms, but relative to the number who have been attacked or otherwise abused by white Christians? And why, given the likely answers to those questions, do we continue to fear the former, while spending so much time trying to ingratiate ourselves to the latter? Is their support for Israel--which is only offered because they hope ingathering Jews there will bring about the return of Jesus, at which point we'll all be sent to hell anyway--really that important? Is that all we require in order to be pimped?
Likewise, although lesbian, gay, bisexual and transgendered folks face violence regularly, and can be discriminated against legally in housing or employment, how often are members of the LGBT community singled out for these things by members of the Nation of Islam, as opposed to so-called God-fearing Christians filled with something to which these latter typically refer as "love?"
Sadly, it isn't only conservative and right-wing white folks who have chosen to make Farrakhan something of a racial Rorschach test for black leaders. To wit, the recent ventilations of self-proclaimed spiritual guru, Michael Lerner, who claimed in an April 29, 2008 e-blast from his "Network of Spiritual Progressives," that lasting damage had likely been done by Rev. Wright's praise for Farrakhan. According to Lerner, failure to clearly condemn the Nation of Islam leader is a "danger to any hopes of reconciliation between blacks and whites in this country."
But such a statement--in effect, placing the burden for racial reconciliation on black people, who must condemn Farrakhan in order for whites to be willing to dialogue--is a grotesque inversion of historic responsibility for the problem of racism in the United States.
Disturbingly, Lerner's formulation suggests it is perfectly legitimate for whites to hold blacks as a group responsible for the words of Louis Farrakhan, or the inadequate condemnation of Farrakhan by Rev. Wright. To believe that praise for Farrakhan is a deal-breaker when it comes to white-black amity, is to endorse the notion of collective blame: the same kind of thing Lerner rightly rejects when it is done to Jews. If someone were to suggest that Jewish folks' tepid condemnation of the Israeli government's repression of the Palestinians, or terrorist Jews like Meir Kahane--whose followers are welcomed participants each year in New York's "Israel Day Parade"--legitimizes anti-Semitism, or makes reconciliation between Jews and Muslims impossible, Lerner would be rightly outraged. But in his recent message, he engages in the same sloppy thinking.
Secondly, by arguing that praise for Farrakhan makes racial reconciliation impossible, Lerner essentially places the burden for solving the nation's race problem on blacks and blacks alone. Whites are not asked by Lerner to renounce popular white politicians or historical figures, even those with egregious records on issues of racial equity and justice. Only blacks must prove their sincerity by renouncing one of their own. It is as if Lerner believes Farrakhan were the reason for white folks' intransigence on issues of race; as if he honestly thinks whites had embraced the cause of racial equity until Farrakhan burst into the national consciousness sometime in the early 1980s. It's as if he thinks whites have been honest racial brokers, just waiting for blacks to come to the table of brotherhood, while blacks have been the impediment to progress because of their occasional kind words for the Minister. In other words, Lerner writes as if history never happened, or at least is of no consequence.
And speaking of history, for white Americans to condemn Farrakhan, while still admiring some of the people for whom we have affection--who have not only said but done far more evil things than he--is evidence of how compromised is the principle we now seek to impose on others. It is evidence of our duplicity on this subject, our utter venality as arbiters of moral indignation. It isn't that what Farrakhan has said about Jews, or gay and lesbian folks is acceptable--it isn't. But the fact that his words make him a pariah, while white folks actions don't do the same for us, is astounding.
After all, Louis Farrakhan never led a nation into war on false pretense. A white American president, supported in two consecutive elections by the majority of white people did that. And still, millions of whites are riding around with those infernal W stickers on the backs of their vehicles.
Louis Farrakhan never bombed a pharmaceutical factory in Sudan--responsible for making almost all of the drugs needed to fight major illness in that impoverished nation--on the false claim that it was a lab for chemical weapons. Another white American president, revered by white liberals did that. And millions of white folks have been supporting that president's wife in her quest for the same office, at least in part to return to the glory days they felt were embodied by her husband's administration.
Louis Farrakhan never overthrew any foreign governments that had been elected by their people, only to replace them with dictators who were more to his liking. One after another white American president has done that, going back decades. (Which is being attempted right now in Zimbabwe)
Louis Farrakhan didn't bomb the home of a foreign leader, killing his daughter in the process, or arm a rebel group in Nicaragua responsible for the deaths of over 30,000 civilians, or give guns to governments in El Salvador and Guatemala that regularly tortured and executed their people. One of white America's favorite white Presidents, Ronald Reagan did that. And millions of white folks (and pretty much only white folks) cried tears of nostalgia when he passed a few years ago, after which point thousands of these went to his ranch in California to pay tribute; and they name buildings and airports for him now; and some even suggest that his face should be added to Mt. Rushmore.
Louis Farrakhan didn't say that his adversaries should be hunted down until they no longer "remained on the face of the Earth." One of America's most revered white presidents, Thomas Jefferson, said that, in regard to American Indians. And he's on the two-dollar bill that I used to buy some coffee this morning.
And even if we were to restrict our comparative analysis to extreme statements alone, the fact is, white folks who say things every bit as bigoted as anything said by Farrakhan remain in good standing with the media and millions of whites who buy their books and make them best-selling authors.
Take Pat Buchanan, for instance. Despite a litany of offensive, racist and anti-Jewish remarks over the years, Buchanan remains a respected commentator on any number of mainstream news shows and networks, his books sell hundreds of thousands of copies, and rarely if ever has he been denounced by other pundits, or grilled by journalists, the way Farrakhan has been, in both cases.
So, for instance, Buchanan has said that AIDS is nature's retribution for homosexuality; that women are "not endowed by nature" with sufficient ambition or will to succeed in a competitive society like that of the United States; and that the U.S. should annex parts of Canada so as to increase the size of the nation's "white tribe" (because we were becoming insufficiently white at present), among other things.
Most relevant to demonstrating the hypocrisy of the press when it comes to Farrakhan, however, consider what Buchanan has said about Adolf Hitler. When Farrakhan said Hitler had been a "great" military and national leader--albeit a "wicked killer" (which is the part of the quote that normally gets ignored)--he was denounced as an apologist for genocide. Yet, when Buchanan wrote, in 1977, that Hitler had been "an individual of great courage, a soldier's soldier in the great war," a man of "extraordinary gifts," whose "genius" was due to his "intuitive sense of the mushiness, the character flaws, the weakness masquerading as morality that was in the hearts of the statesmen who stood in his path," it did nothing to harm his career, and has done nothing in the years since to prevent him from becoming a member of the pundit club in Washington. Nor would he receive the kind of criticism as Farrakhan--at least not lasting criticism--when he wrote in 1990 that survivors of the European Holocaust exaggerated their suffering due to "Holocaust survivor syndrome," and that the gas chambers alleged at Treblinka couldn't have actually killed anyone because they were too inefficient.
In other words, a white guy can praise Hitler, can cast aspersions on the veracity of Jews who were slotted to be killed, and can make blatantly racist, sexist and homophobic remarks and ultimately nothing happens to him, and no white politician is ever asked their opinion of him, or made to distance him or herself from the white man's rantings. But black folks will have to do the dance, will have to make sure to reject Farrakhan, because otherwise, apparently, we should intuit that they are closet members of the Nation, just waiting to take office so they can pop on a bow tie and put Elijah Muhammad's face on the nation's currency.
Perhaps when white folks begin to show as much concern for the bigoted statements and, more to the point, murderous actions of white political leaders as we show over the statements of Louis Farrakhan, then we'll deserve to be taken seriously in this thing we call the "national dialogue on race." Until then, however, folks of color will continue--and rightly, understandably so--to view us as trying to dodge our personal responsibility for our share of the problem. They will view us, and with good reason, as merely using Farrakhan so that we can divert attention from institutional discrimination, institutionalized white privilege and power, and the way in which white denial maintains a lid on social change, by creating the impression that everything is fine, and whatever isn't fine is the fault of "crazy," militant black people, who follow so-called crazy and hateful religious leaders. In this way, white Americans can continue to pretend that the nation's racial problem isn't about us; that we are but passive observers of a drama concocted by others, over which only they have any control. And in this way, we guarantee the perpetuation of the very enmity we claim not to understand, the very tension we cannot comprehend, and the chasm-like divide that was created in our name and for our historic benefit, no matter how much we try and shift the blame now, heads rooted firmly in the proverbial sand.

YOU+ME=US

-- ajabum@netzero.net wrote:
Hello Bill Fletcher, Jr.,

You are being contacted via Blackcommentator.com by Rev. Mmoja Ajabu.

Rev. Mmoja Ajabu has provided the following contact information:

Email: ajabum@netzero.net (Copy sent)
Phone:
Website: http://www.ajabuspeaks.squarespace.com
Reason: To make a comment

Message:
My comments are in parenthesis within the article:

I remember reading of the origin of the term “Pyrrhic victory.” It came from a battle in which Pyrrhus, the King of ancient Epirus, won a victory over the Romans at such a terrible cost, that he and his forces were ruined.

Robert Mugabe has been declared the victor in the Zimbabwean elections. The elections were so tainted by murder and intimidation that they lost all credibility. Leaders of African nations who, hitherto, had been reluctant to criticize the undemocratic practices of President Mugabe have now spoken out. South Africa’s former President Nelson Mandela felt compelled to break with his successor, President Thabo Mbeki, in denouncing President Mugabe and his “failure of leadership.” In the middle of this, President Mugabe stands firm, as if a character out of a Shakespearean play, proclaiming his eternal rule and willingness to go to war should he lose an election.

(It appears to me that Fletcher is reading meaning into Mandella’s words. In the speech in its entirety one has to speak about the violence against Zimbabweans in South Africa. Exactly Nelson’s position on the elections cannot be determined if his words are view in context. Nelson whole speech is as follows:

Mr Mandela addressed the audience and said:
“Friends, thank you for joining us here this evening, and your support for our causes. “It is a great privilege having been able to travel here in our 90th year and be in the presence of so many good friends. “Thank you for the continuing support in the fight against the terrible scourge of HIV and AIDS. You understand that it is in your hands to make a difference.

“The world remains beset by so much human suffering, poverty and deprivation. It is in your hands to make of our world a better one for all, especially the poor, vulnerable and marginalised. “We look back at much human progress, but we sadly note so much failing as well. In our time we spoke out on the situation in Palestine and Israel, and that conflict continues unabated. We warned against the invasion of Iraq, and observe the terrible suffering in that country.
“We watch with sadness the continuing tragedy in Darfur. “Nearer to home we had seen the outbreak of violence against fellow Africans in our own country and the tragic failure of leadership in our neighbouring Zimbabwe. “It is within this context that we should also see the plight of those affected by HIV and AIDS. “It is now in the hands of your generations to help rid the world of such suffering. “I thank you.”

(Obviously, Nelson Mandella is speaking about the situation in Zimbabwe “in the context . . . of those affected by HIV and AIDS” not the elections.)

Progressives around the world must now take a deep breath and reflect on the situation. Those who have been entranced by President Mugabe’s anti-imperialist rhetoric must do an assessment of the situation on the ground. The Black farm workers who worked the land of the white farmers, did not measurably benefit from Mugabe’s land seizures;

(Have anyone to any extent benefitted from the 2002 land reform act? How can people benefit when the Britain and the USA are blocking the country from obtaining the foreign exchange from the World Bank and the International Monetary Fund which is needed to repair the irrigation infrastructure that the whites sabatouged before getting off the land?)

inflation is at a scale virtually unimaginable in economics; hundreds of thousands of people were removed from their homes two years ago in the middle of the Zimbabwean winter, having no place to go, allegedly because they were vagrants living in shacks,

(These people were vagrants, not alleged. At the same time Mugabe was moving vagrants from downtown Harare, Shirley Franklin was moving vagrants from downtown Atlanta. Why is it alright for Atlanta to remove vagrants and not Harare. I am sure if the vagrants in Atlanta would vote that they would have voted against Shirley Franklin. Would that have changed her position that vagrants cannot set up residence in downtown Atlanta? I think not. So what is the difference with President Mugabe removing vagrants from the streets of downtown Harare? They might not have voted for him, if they voted. Who the vagrants would vote for does not minimize the safety issues they present by setting up residence in downtown Harare. No government in America will let the homeless set up residence in the parks, under by-passes, or in the alleys of their downtowns. President Mugabe did what other Mayor's in major cities in the US and Britain would do. Why is his decision so distasteful while any other leader's same decision is good governance? Is it distasteful because it waas done in Zimbabwe's winter? The temperature in Zimbabwe fluctuates anywhere from 55 degrees farenheit to 75 degrees year round. Winter in Zimbabwe is not winter in Zimbabwe. Why won't you give your readers the context of the words that you are using? There appears to be a hidden bias in your writing.)

but more likely because they were a base of support for the opposition; assassinations and physical intimidation became the modus operandi of pro-Mugabe militias in the aftermath of the first round of elections this spring as a way of suppressing the opposition;

(Why doesn’t your writings address the finance given to the opposition by Britain and the USA to wage their political campaign. The ambassadors from both countries were caught, after running a roadblock, with MDC T-shirts and MDC campaign literature in their diplomatic vehicles. This stuff was produced by these diplomats. Would the US or Britain allow Syria to finance a political party and run a candidate in the race for President? NO!! It is against the law and highly immoral. Why would Zimbabwe allow what is not allows in the US and Britain. Should Zimbabwe allow this chicanery just because it is the US and Britain? Are the Zimbabwean people supposed to be so afraid that they will let the US and Britain do anything in their country? MDC, or the so-called opposition is not a legitimate Zimbabwean enterprise. MDC is a colonialist front organization.)

and the homophobic President continues to ignore the depth of the HIV/AIDS crisis in his country.

(You finally got to the context of Nelson Mandella's words. The last thing I recently read was HIV/AIDS was on a decline in Zimbabwe. If President Mugabe has a fear (homophobic) of homosexuals it doesn’t seem like he has a problem allotting medical assistance to deal with HIV/AIDS. I want to make sure that I am not seen to be connecting the gay lifestyle with the disease. I am not sure that a connection has been medically proven. Maybe you do know of a connection which is why your are making the connection. Or is this again a hidden bias in your writing?)

As noted Syracuse Professor Horace Campbell remarked in a debate on the Pacifica program “Democracy Now!”, while it is absolutely true that there are other countries in Africa (and certainly around the world) who have horrendous human rights practices, this in no way lets Zimbabwe off the hook. Zimbabwe was, according to its leaders, supposedly attempting to carry out more than political independence from colonialism, but was to be engaged in a project of social transformation. For this reason alone we should hold Zimbabwe, and President Mugabe, to a higher standard than we would someone like Egypt’s President Mubarak.

(What kind of statement is this? Because President Mugabe set out to do more for the people of Zimbabwe than others, then we should expect more even though the West pours dollars at Egypt and President Mubarak, while it blocks loans to President Mugabe and Zimbabwe while it covertly finances an overt political opposition. There is no fair comparison of the two countries except to say with all this western opposition to the government in Zimbabwe it still stands. All praises be to God!!)

The dilemma for progressives in the USA who support the people of Zimbabwe revolves around what steps we can take. In fact, what we are most often asked is whether we support the various actions by the Bush administration to put pressure on President Mugabe.
I wish that I could support such efforts. I simply cannot. Neither the USA nor Britain possesses the moral authority to engage constructively in the Zimbabwe crisis.

(If you don’t support the USA or Britain why don’t you speak about their meddling in Zimbabwe’s business? The MDC is financed by both of these countries. I sure you know the golden rule. He who provides the gold rules. The US and Britain are providing the gold for the MDC to exist. Therefore, the US and Britain rule the MDC. Just saying you don't support the US or Britain is not enough, when your positions reflect their policies.)

At best they can play a supportive role where African nations are taking the lead. The Bush administration is not in a position to lecture anyone on human rights or genuine elections. This fact, however, should NOT mean that we remain silent simply because President Bush holds President Mugabe in distain.

(Again, why are you so vocal about your position on Mugabe, but silent about the chicanery of the Bush regime in Zimbabwe? It appears you are saying one thing and doing exactly what you say you won’t do. Are you clandestinely trying to help Bush achieve his objectives in Zimbabwe while giving the appearance that you are not with Bush? Help me to understand.)

The enemy of our enemy is not necessarily our friend.
Many progressives in South Africa have taken a leading role in opposing the Mugabe tyranny, and they have done this without the support of their own government. Several weeks ago, for instance, a Chinese ship full of weapons destined for Mugabe’s government attempted to unload in South Africa. South African dockworkers refused to unload the boat. Ultimately the ship had to turn around and sail back to China.

(When are you going to tell your readers that this is the union out of which Morgan Tsvangirai was a leader? Don’t you think this has bearing on the dockworkers' politics? I don’t know where the seat of the international leadership for the South African dock workers are located but I bet a good guess is that the international office is either in Britain or the USA.)

The example of the refusal to unload the Chinese ship was interesting in that the workers imposed their own sanctions on the Mugabe regime.

(Which way do you want it. At first you call for the government of South Africa, along with other African governments, to take the lead in finding a solution for the situation in Zimbabwe. Now you call for people within these countries to revolt against their home governments, as long as the government is patient with the situation in Zimbabwe? It appears your position is at any cost people should cause the demise of the Mugabe government. Isn’t that the position of Britain and the USA governments? What is progressive or different about your position as opposed to Britain or the US position?)

It was also interesting, as a side note, that China was supplying small arms to Zimbabwe in the middle of a political crisis; small arms that would have been of little use against external invaders but certainly useful for suppressing internal dissent.

(Were you aware that it was reported that MDC was also caught with a cache of weapons? Why doesn’t illegal, illegitimate opposition to Zimbabwe’s government come up in your writings? Are you just using the term progressive to make people think that is what you are, while you in essence support western policy on Zimbabwe? Help me to understand.)

Subsequently, and in the context of the fraudulent, second-round Zimbabwean elections, the Congress of South African Trade Unions went one step further and called on South Africans to blockade Zimbabwe. They actually took an additional step: they have called upon friends of the Zimbabwean people to engage in total non-cooperation with the Mugabe regime. I believe that this is the course that should be followed.

(How does your position differ from what Bush is calling for? This position has been rejected by the United Nations and the South African Development Community (SADC). You are supporting using outside pressure to determine Zimbabwe’s domestic politics. You like anyone else, should get out of Zimbabwe’s business. Progressives are in opposition to sanctions. Why aren't you. Progressive are calling for the US and Britain to lift the sanctions off of Zimbabwe so the pain that these sanctions are causing the Zimbabwean people will be eased. Now watch this, If the people of Zimbabwe want to change the leaders of the government of Zimbabwe then let them do so without foreign involvement. In that way the true will of the Zimbabweans will be reflected. The US, Britain, you, and even me need to get out of Zimbabwe's business. Yes, we should continue to speak about it, but what happens on the ground should be determined by Zimbabweans and Zimbaweans alone.)

Nothing should be done to assist or give the slightest bit of credibility to the Mugabe regime. The Mugabe regime should henceforth be recognized to be an oligarchy administered by an autocrat in the name of a clique that is currently benefiting at the expense of the Zimbabwean people.

(This position hurts no one more than the Zimbabwean people. If you are for the people then why would you support hurting them? They already are not eating on a regular basis for a large part because of the sanctions imposed by the US and Britain. For nothing to be done to assist them means that they will eat on a less regular basis than what already exists. Are you trying to starve them to death? Please!!)

Those who support the people of Zimbabwe should not follow the lead of President Bush or British Prime Minister Brown. They have nothing to offer and they will, in fact, worsen the situation.

(Your position follows the lead of Bush and Brown!! You are saying don’t do what you are in essence doing. You give your readership little credit if you think we cannot see for what you really are calling. We are not stupid. You are calling for more sanctions which is exactly the policy of the US and Britain.)

Rather, we should be calling upon the African Union and Zimbabwe’s neighbors to take action. Perhaps with the right amount of genuine pressure, a transitional government can be put into place. A transitional government, however, cannot be a mechanism for the practical elimination of the opposition. It must be a means to step back from the precipice of civil war.

(The opposition is not genuine Zimbabwean. The MDC is a front organization for the US and British governments. Its lifespan in Zimbabwe should be limited. If Morgan wants to be an opposition leader then he should get his financing and support directly from the Zimbabwean people. At that point he will begin to look legitimate. At this point, he appears to be a traitor of the Zimbabwean people. Benedict Arnold was executed because America accused him of convorting with the enemy. Would you say that the US and Britain are the enemies of Zimbabwe? If so, what makes Morgan any different than Benedict?)

A final point and actually one that I have made at other moments in discussing Zimbabwe. Much has been made of the contradictory and often pro-Western politics of the principal opposition group, the Movement for a Democratic Change. In fact, and quite ironically there have been times when Mugabe was perceived to be and portrayed as being pro-Western. He certainly introduced economic policies to the satisfaction of the World Bank and International Monetary Fund in the 1980s.

(So since Mugabe was perceived and portrayed as being pro-Western is neutralizes the fact that MDC is a front organization for the US and British governments? Does not your statement fly in the face of Syracuse Professor Horace Campbell who you quoted earlier in this article? Mr. Fletcher, what are you doing? Your analysis is not systematic. Your analysis appears to be trying to make a point that is contrary to the facts being used to make the point. It appears that you are you in actuality supporting the re-colonization of Zimbabwe under the guise of being a progressive. If this is not your intent then you need to reconsider your position quickly.)

Opposing the Mugabe autocracy does not mean supporting the MDC. The future of the MDC, let alone Zimbabwe, should be in the hands of the people of Zimbabwe. What we, progressives and friends of Zimbabwe should recognize is that we have a duty of solidarity with the people of that country fighting to complete that which their Liberation War started so very long ago.

(I am in agreement with your closing paragraph. However, the route you took to get there is fraught with opportunity for the Western world to re-take over control of Zimbabwe. I support the Zimbabwean’s people will and right to fight to the death to prevent control of their country being in the hands of anyone other than Zimbabweans who are financed and controlled by Zimbabweans. Foreign influence should get out of the way and let that happen. May God continue to order our steps.)

BlackCommentator.com Executive Editor, Bill Fletcher, Jr., is a Senior Scholar with the Institute for Policy Studies, the immediate past president of TransAfrica Forum and co-author of the just released book, Solidarity Divided: The Crisis in Organized Labor and a New Path toward Social Justice (University of California Press), which examines the crisis of organized labor in the USA. Click here to contact Mr. Fletcher.

Cut down on the religious aspect??? Wow, I am so glad God is not about religion, people are. God is about relationship; (Treat as others as you would like to be treated) infers how we relate to others.I wonder sometimes if we truly recognize and understand the sovereignty of God? The issues over in Zimbabwe are as they should be right now. Just as Jesus told Pilate when he thought he had the power to stay Jesus' execution. Jesus told Pilate, "Thou couldest have no power at all against me, except it were given thee from above: John 19:11A; This scripture gives reference to the fact that no one does anything without God's permission, and like Rev. Ajabu stated this is not God's will, however it is being allowed. God will be glorified through this horrific situation, The US and Great Britain are very much like minded as a result of many years of European take overs and infiltrations that have taken place over the past few centuries and before. The ancestors of Britain are predominately running the US so it is no surprise to the actions of said leaders. However, how can we not place God in the equation, the problem at hand is prevalent as a reslut of rebellion and disobedience against God. When we realize God is not a thing to do but who we are about and our way of life, we won't make such ignorant statements as "keep God out of these discussions", this would not be heard of. A wise man said, "Once we get to know what God already knew, then we'll be alright and wiser than ever before." Just because some people don't believe in reality, does not make the reality a lie. Our greatest demise is due to the lack of faith there is in a God who is in control and so much so that He doesn't even force Himself on anyone. However, we must know where we live and today God is allowing mass destruction so people will draw close and closer to Himself; we don't know how to accept goodness even when it shows up pretty, so God allows the ugly in order to shake us up to the point of recognizing we need Him, afterall we are actually finite beings. Unless we, especially those of us who understand things of the spirit lift God up then the state these nations are in will only get worse. Sermons, nobody is preaching here, wisdom is a wonderful asset, but only to those who accept and embrace it. The prayer used to reference the situation in Zimbabwe being restated, only shows how important it is for some to sit quiet and learn as not to speak that which condemns those in need of help and misrepresents a full faith community. If the scripture is not conducive to the situation it should not be used nor should the word of God be taken causally. I only know God, because to pretend to know the heart of man or organizations would be unintelligent and a waste of time, to know God is all one needs, or should I say coming to know God, the bible says who knows the mind of God, we however have the mind of Christ, (1 Corinthians 2:16, confirmation in John 15:15). Well, I will not overwhelm you all with truth, however like Barack Obama understands, the best example of truth is one lived out. The United States has shown their hand in many nations, Great Britain has shown theirs as well. We have a people (our people) fighting for the survival of their nation and race, we need not turn away to blame and cowardice communications, but avail ourselves unto the Lord as vessels inhabited by Him to help this nation prevail. With all due respect, are we willing to treat Zimbabweans as we want to be treated? Ponder this, and make a choice.

Amen Mannette!!!

Wow, as I read the response from Lumumba I found myself engrossed in the statements made to the point of grave concern. When we misunderstand and/or misrepresent the word of God we lose the very essence of reality as we need it because life, believe it or not is not about perceptions, emotions or one persons mindset, but a collection of lessons lived, learned and purposes we either live out or miss. The devil is very real, however he is only as powerful as we allow, he can not do anything in the physical unless a physical being allows themselves to be inhabited by his spirit. The devil plays psychological games with people, and when our thought processes are not guided by way of the only one who has already prevailed over the devil then a person is left at the mercy of his own mind and having to make the decision to act or not upon that which has been planted. No, Lumumba, all white people are not devils, have you encountered any other nationality? Well, I have and where I come from the devil is neither physical or colorful, he just is as we allow him to be. Enlightenment: Lucifer created no one, not even himself; God is the creator and one sure way to draw the devils attention toward yourself and those connected to you is to strip God (verbally) of the glory rightfully do Him. Let me help you, if I can, understand that you have power over satan, and as long as you verbally relinguish power by saying what he can do and not what God has, will and is doing then he will remain victorious in your life, make a choice today, Deuteronomy chapter 30 says, chose life or death TODAY, that is God or satan. Rev. Ajabu I pondered your comments on brainwashing and I agree for the most part, however I know that many times based upon relationships and positions people are being mislead by that which they understand as being truth either by one's admission or ommission of lies, called "deception", however wisdom is shown even with the one having been deceived when they discern and find they have been deceived and sacrifice the deceptor. Wisdom comes only from God, this is what is told to me in James 1:5, and He gives it generously if a person wants it; but for those who set out to deceive woe to them; as with the conflict in Zimbabwe, America or even in our daily lives, as stated in Gal. 5:9-14; where it discusses how people do things that cause others to turn from that which has set them free and have caused chaos in these peoples lives because of their misleadings and guidance. You are also right stating that when people connected to us hurt others we are indirectly responsible when we benefit from their pain, yes we are responsible to helping if we say we care and are about change. I am finding that even in these conversations (people can make their mouths say anything). A challenge to help continues to go forth however not many solutions to considered??? I believe it is all about who and what we believe, and if those of us who are prayer warriors would stand on the wisdom and power of God and take Him at His word, we could make a significant, positive difference in the lives of those suffering abroad and among us. One of the things I love about the Obama's, they understand the power of prayer and confidence in the one to whom we are praying. More power to you all. God bless.