The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: June 2014

Our Very Own “Nation of Islam”


Before 9/11 – 2001, that is, how many years have
passed, and there is still no “closure”! – Islamists were of no
concern to Americans. Well, a liberal politician or columnist might retort, maybe
except for the botched World
Trade Center bombing of 1993
, when only six people were killed. Less than a
handful. Nothing to worry about. The WTC recovered. People got on with their
lives, up until, well, 9/11. As far as blaming Muslims and jihadists is concerned, anything that happened before 9/11 is just
a blank page.
But wait! There’s more! Brush the cobwebs from
your memories. Those of us with non-porous memories will remember: Muslims have
been waging a murderous war in the name of Islam, and even in the name of
racism, since at least 1972! Oh, come on!
Oh, yes.
Bill Warner of the Political Islam
site recently published “Jihad in America,” a five-page list of sixty-four
terrorism incidents dating from 1973 to April 2013. That’s forty years of
Islamic terrorism, and counting.
Post-9/11 data are derived from The Religion of Peace site, which, in
addition to reporting the latest Islamic murders, conquests, and outrages,
features a list longer than Bill Warner’s of Islamic atrocities committed
around the world between the end of May 2014 and June.  That’s just about thirty days, or nearly 500
incidents of Islamic violence which resulted in deaths, injuries, and
kidnappings.  In one month.
Astonished by the number of Islamic violence-related
incidents that have not been reported
in the mainstream media, or even hinted at, I printed out that list – it came to
ten pages – and took the time to tally the bodies: 2,190. This body count includes Muslims attacking non-Muslims,
Sunnis fighting Shi’ites in Syria, Iraq and elsewhere, the depredations of Boko
Haram in Nigeria and of ISIS in Mosul.
The death count does not include individuals
executed in Saudi Arabia, Iran, Pakistan, Afghanistan, Indonesia, Malaysia, and
Yemen (did I leave any country out?) as part of the government’s enforcement of
Sharia, or the vengeance killings, rapes, extorted conversions, and kidnappings
by the Muslim Brotherhood in Egypt. From Thailand to Sadr City to Damascus to
Benghazi to Kenya, the Bubonic plague of Islamism has claimed thousands of
lives just in recent memory – never mind in centuries past – and will continue
to claim them until Islam is repudiated, or until the Western powers (or are
they “powers” anymore?) decide to teach Islam a lesson.
Noteworthy in the list of Islam-related crimes
committed in the U.S. is the number committed by members of the Nation of Islam (NOI), an organization which
could be said to have pioneered waging its own brand of jihad on the country, and especially against whites and Jews.  And another astonishing discovery was that the
Southern
Poverty Law Center
, not known for its  adherence to reality and objectivity in
identifying domestic terrorist organizations, has actually designated NOI as a
“hate group” guilty of spewing “hate speech.” The SPLC staff
must have been on meth then, or were recovering from hangovers from a drunken Christmas
party.  
The first NOI mosque was founded by Wallace
Fard Muhammad
in Detroit, Michigan, probably in 1930. His origins and end
are obscure and a confusing mishmash of legend and fact. Official NOI mythology
claims he was Allah incarnate. The FBI, however, in possession of his
fingerprints, identified him as Wallie D. Ford, an ex-convict from Portland,
Oregon.  Discover the Networks notes that
while WFM preached Islam, his brand of it departed from “traditional”
Islamic texts and practices: (though not by much):
WFM’s
“theology” had little in common with traditional Islam,
virtually ignoring the Five Pillars of the faith (acceptance of
Allah, the Prophet Mohammed, and the Koran; the observance of Ramadan; charity
to the poor; making the hajj; and daily prayer). It
focused instead on an elaborate myth in which a renegade black scientist
named Yakub had created the white race 6,000 years earlier as both a curse
and a test for the black master race. According to WFM, the black
tribe of the Shabazz, despite a 66 trillion-year head start over the upstarts,
was overcome by the inferior white race and its enslaving religion,
Christianity.
His brand of Islam and his preaching skills
netted him some success.
By 1934, WFM’s Detroit
temple had 8,000 members. Among his most important converts was Elijah
Poole, an alcoholic grade-school dropout who eventually would become Elijah
Muhammad
. WFM sent the latter to Chicago to establish a second NOI
temple (after having spent three years instructing him).
Elijah
Muhammad
, his successor in NOI, developed Fard Muhammad’s Islamic version
of “black
liberation theology
” along the lines of racism. In 1932 he was sent to
Chicago by his mentor to establish an NOI mosque there.
When
WFM mysteriously disappeared in 1934, NOI, amidst charges and
counter-charges of foul play, experienced its first schism. One faction,
led by Abdul Muhammad, used the name Temple of Islam; Elijah Muhammad,
meanwhile, established a new NOI headquarters in Chicago. Eventually,
Abdul Muhammad’s group would be reabsorbed by NOI.
During World War II, Elijah Muhammad became a
“conscientious objector, not only to the war, but to the United States.
He encouraged blacks to
become conscientious resisters in World War II and was himself arrested and
incarcerated for draft-dodging in 1942. In his own defense, he argued both
that he was too old for the draft, being then 45, and also that as a black man,
he had no business fighting for the United States. 
He wrote:
“When the call [to register for the draft] was made for all males
between 18 and 44, I refused (NOT EVADED) on the grounds that, first, I was a
Muslim and would not take part in war and especially not on the side with the
infidels.” In fact, Elijah Muhammad encouraged blacks to support the Japanese
against the U.S.  He also established NOI’s paramilitary wing, the
Fruit of Islam (FOI), and instituted the FOI dress code of black suits with
white shirts.
Elijah Muhammad blew the mythology of Yakub to
new proportions of racist lunacy:
In 1965 Elijah Muhammad
published a 300-page book titled Message to the Blackman in America,
based on the aforementioned WFM doctrines. In his screed, Elijah
Muhammad explained that Allah had originally created the black race before all
others, followed sequentially by the brown, red, and yellow races. The white
race, he said, had come into existence only through the efforts of a
renegade scientist named Yakub, who allegedly created white people
sometime around 4000 BC.

According to Muhammad, Yakub extracted the “brown germ” from the
“black germ” and in turn grafted whites from the “brown
germ.” The result of this ill-advised experiment, said Muhammad,
was the dilution of black blood and the creation of a morally tainted
strain of humanity — “white devils” who would go on to
devastate the world and oppress all other human beings, and whom God would one
day destroy in a liberating Armageddon.

No reconciliation between whites and blacks was
possible, preached Elijah Muhammad. Furthermore:
According to
Muhammad, blacks who strive to assimilate into mainstream American culture
were “disgraceful Uncle Toms” and “Stool Pigeons.”
Sound familiar? Non-black Muslims who strive to
integrate into American society are also traitors and probably apostates. (Though
there don’t seem to be very many of them.) The Council of American-Islamic Relations
(CAIR) and other Islamic organization in this country expect America to
accommodate Islamic supremacist political theology and practices, as well.
NOI’s current high priest is Louis
Farrakhan
, whose beginnings were benign and inauspicious.
Louis Farrakhan was born
Louis Eugene Walcott on May 11, 1933 in Roxbury, Massachusetts. As a young man
in Boston, he became a popular entertainer as a calypso singer, dancer, and
violinist. While in Chicago in February 1955, he was invited by a friend to
attend a Nation of Islam Saviours’ Day Convention at a local mosque. Soon
thereafter Farrakhan joined NOI.
Both Farrakhan and Elijah Muhammad were
implicated in the murder of ex-convict and convert Malcolm X in 1965.
As recently as 1993, Farrakhan
tried to justify Malcolm X’s assassination when he said
in a speech, “Was Malcolm your traitor or ours? And if we dealt with
[Malcolm] like a nation deals with a traitor, what the hell business is it of
yours? A nation has to be able to deal with traitors and cutthroats and
turncoats.”
Farrakhan’s love affair with tyrants, dictators
and Muslim-governed nations perhaps is greater than Barack Obama’s.  He has also experimented with Dianetics.
According to Farrakhan, [L.
Ron} Hubbard’s teachings can help heal
“the hurt and sickness of my people”; i.e., the pain inflicted upon them by a
racist world. COS [Church of Scientology} also has the potential to “civilize”
white people and prevent them from becoming “devil Christians” and “Satan
Jews,” adds Farrakhan. “We are Muslims, but if Scientology will help us be
better, then I want the technology of this to help us to be better Muslims,” he
says.
More information on Farrakhan can be
found on Wikipedia here,
and on his own narcistic site here, and here.
But, what about
all those Nation of Islam acts of terrorism. I cite a few crimes from Bill
Warner’s Political
Islam
site:
January 10, 1973 – Brooklyn, NY: Muslim extremists rob a sporting
goods store for weapons, gunning down a police officer who responds to the
alarm.
July 18, 1973 – Washington D.C. : 
Nation of Islam members shoot seven members of a family to death in cold
blood, including four children. A defendant in the case is later murdered in
prison on orders from Elijah Muhammad.
October 19, 1973 – Oakland, CA: 
Nation of Islam terrorists kidnap a couple and nearly decapitate the
man, while raping and leaving the woman for dead.
October 29, 1973 – Berkeley, CA: A woman is shot repeatedly in the
face by Nation of Islam terrorists.
December 24, 1973 – Oakland, CA: A man is kidnapped, tortured and
decapitated by Nation of Islam terrorists.
That’s for starters. Mixed in with NOI acts of terror and murder
are those committed by Palestinians and other Muslim jihadists in this country alone. Retired Reverend Jeremiah “God
damn America” Wright
, friend of former president Bill Clinton (no
surprise there) and former pastor of Trinity United Church of Christ in Chicago,
Barack Obama’s former church for twenty years, also preached a kind of “black
liberation theology” not too dissimilar from NOI’s.
One must wonder: Given the well-known
Islamic contempt
for blacks, how copasetic can “official” Islam and
the Nation of Islam be? For more on that subject, see Stephen Brown’s February
2013 FrontPage article, “Al-Qaeda’s
Anti-Black Racism
.”
So, dear readers, Islamic terrorism in America didn’t begin with the
first World Trade Center bombing. It began at least twenty years before with
the Nation of Islam, the maverick Islamic political theology that also proclaims
its intention to destroy America and Western civilization.

Skinning the Redskins


I have no interest in sports. Never had any. I don’t care who wins
the world soccer championship, or comes out on top during the football, hockey
or baseball seasons, or which team wins the pennant or trophy. It’s not that
I’m anti-sports. I am consummately indifferent. I guess I was born without a
“sports” organ. When work colleagues asked me if I’d watched
“the game” last night, my traditional response was: “When they
schedule the Pittsburgh Pirates versus the Green Bay Packers, then I’ll take an
interest.” That friendly retort usually drove home the idea that they
shouldn’t invite me to join a football pool. I’m not likely, either, to go wild
in the streets, trashing shops and burning cars and being maced by riot police,
if the Lakers lose to the Chicago Cubs, the Oshkosh Bears, or the Winnipeg Penguins.
However, the recent decision of the U.S.
Patent and Trademark Office
to de-register the name of the Washington
Redskins is a serious matter, fraught with dangers not only to trademarks and
trademark owners, but to patents and patent holders, in addition to copyrights
and copyright owners, as well. Theresa Vargas in her June 18th
Washington Post article, “Federal
Agency cancels Redskins trademark registration, says name is disparaging
,”
reported:
The United States Patent and
Trademark Office has canceled
the Washington Redskins trademark registration
, calling the football team’s
name “disparaging to Native Americans.”
The landmark case, which appeared
before the Trademark Trial and Appeal Board, was filed on behalf of five Native
Americans. It was the second time such a case was filed….
Federal trademark law does not
permit registration of trademarks that “may disparage” individuals or groups or
“bring them into contempt or disrepute.” The ruling pertains to six different
trademarks associated with the team, each containing the word “Redskin.”
Commercially, what the ruling means is that while the team’s
owners won’t be forced to change the team’s name to something more saccharine
(or politically correct, e.g., “The Big Hulking Guys Who Chase Obloids”),
it has lost the right to control the usage of the team’s name in its logos and
merchandising endeavors. That is, the name is up for grabs to whoever wants to
sell T-shirts, mugs, glasses and apparel under that name. The team’s owners
would not be able to even license the team name to other parties.
Constitutionally, the de-registering amounts to a theft of
property without compensation. The suit by the five “Indians” against
the Redskins might be interpreted as having adhered to the “due
process” clause of the Fifth
and Fourteenth Amendment
s:
The government may not deprive
citizens of “life, liberty, or property” without due process of law. This means
that the government has to follow rules and established procedures in
everything it does. It cannot, for example, skip parts of trials, or deny
citizens their rights as protected by the Bill of Rights and by
law.
 Due process,”
in this instance, meaning the legalized theft of the Redskins name. “See?
We followed the rules. The Patent and Trademark Office followed the rules. That’s
‘due process,’ isn’t it?”
Another Washington Post article by Cindy Boren, “Trademark
decision puts economic, political pressure on Redskins,
” noted:
But
whether a perfect storm of those issues is gathering is far from clear.
Economically, the league isn’t likely to feel much of a pinch. Most of its
revenues derive from TV licensing, although merchandise sales are significant.
The nation’s most popular sports league, the NFL generates revenues estimated
at more than $9
billion
annually and the Redskins, at $1.7 billion, were rated the league’s third-most
valuable team by Forbes magazine last year. Their annual revenue was estimated
at $373
million.
This misses the point. The potential or
real loss of revenue resulting from the decision is irrelevant. The Patent and
Trademark Office’s decision, based on a suit filed by five individuals, constituted
the theft of property, on the most specious of reasons, that the
“name” (and associated symbols) was “disparaging.” The
Office as much as said: “Your name and symbols are offensive to a certain
protected class of citizens, and hurts its feelings, so this agency is
delegitimizing said name and symbols as protectable and licensable property. The
exclusivity of said name and symbols is hereafter null and void.”
The actual document of the decision
is 177 pages long, and includes many pages of some highly dubious documentation
submitted by the complainants to buttress their case, including citations of
novels, movies, TV shows, symbols of Indians from the past (such as dime or
tobacco store Indian statues). The five complainants, Amanda Blackhorse, Marcus
Briggs-Cloud, Philip Gover, Jillian Pappan, and Courtney Tsotigh, purport to
represent all American Indians (aka “Native Americans”; anyone born
in the U.S. can claim to be a “Native American.” The term is meaningless).
Boren’s article goes on to report:
As a
league official said, “The decision does not mean that the team loses
its trademark protection. It loses the benefits of federal registration, but
the team will continue to protect its trademarks against third parties using
it.  The team has what is called ‘common law rights,’ which do not require
a trademark registration.”
Gabriel
Feldman, the director of the sports law program at Tulane
University, agreed with that interpretation. “This ruling doesn’t
eliminate the ability of the Washington Redskins to use their trademark or
prevent others from using it,” Feldman told the Post’s Mark Maske. “But it does
limit their ability to enforce their rights. It ultimately could change the
financial analysis about whether to keep the name or change it. … At the end of
the day, this likely still will be a financial decision. I don’t know that this
changes the political pressure. … This is clearly not the first time there’s
been a public declaration that the name is disparaging and offensive.”
A Washington Post editorial
of June 18th opined:
Were the
ruling to stand, bootleggers could pump out cheap jerseys, jackets and other
trinkets bearing the team’s logo and name without the team collecting licensing
fees. It could even make the Redskins
name and logo even more pervasive than it is now.
Despite a
well-orchestrated public relations pressure campaign that has been joined by
the usual cadre of liberal special-interest groups, polls have consistently
found that there’s never been more than a tiny minority of the public at large
and, more importantly, of American Indians themselves, who think the name is
offensive. Ninety percent of the American Indians told pollsters for the
Annenberg Public Policy Center in 2004 that the name didn’t bother them.
George
Preston Marshall, the founding owner of the club, chose “Redskins
in 1933 to honor Lone Star Dietz, the coach and an American Indian. “I admire
the Redskins
name,” the late Jack Kent Cooke, whose family sold the team to Dan Snyder in
1999, once said. “I think it stands for bravery, courage and a stalwart spirit,
and I see no reason why we shouldn’t continue to use it.”
NBC disagrees, or hasn’t read a history
of the Redskins. Its May 27th, 2014 article, “Civil
rights groups urge players to oppose Washington team’s name
,” raises
the usual suspects of oppression and exploitation.
Over
the weekend, a couple of random Washington players tweeted approval of
president/G.M. Bruce Allen’s response
to Senator Harry Reid
regarding a 50-Senator
letter
opposing the team name.  Now, more than 50 Native American and
civil rights groups are urging all other players to take a stand in opposition
to the name.
In a
letter dated Wednesday but released to the media today, more than 75 different
organizations have asked NFL players to speak out against the team’s
name.  The letter comes less than a week after NFLPA president Eric Winston
explained on PFT Live that the players union doesn’t
plan to get in the middle
of the lingering controversy.
“Despite
team officials claiming the name ‘honors’ Native Americans, the ‘R-word’ does
exactly the opposite,” the letter states. “It was the word screamed at Native
Americans as they were dragged at gunpoint off their lands, it is the word for
the object needed to collect a bounty—literally ‘red skins’—ripped from dead Native
American bodies and exchanged for money as proof of kill, and it is a term that
still denigrates Native Americans today. The name does not honor people of
color, instead it seeks to conceal a horrible segment of American history and
the countless atrocities suffered by Native Americans….”
No mention of the atrocities suffered by
whites at the hands of Indians from coast to coast in the 18th and
19th centuries. Well, they don’t matter, do they?  And, of course, more of the usual suspects:
The
list of organizations sending the letter includes the NAACP, the
Anti-Defamation League, the National Gay and Lesbian Task Force, the National
Fair Housing Alliance, and many Native American groups.
How many Indians are we talking about who
feel “disparaged” or “offended” by the Redskins’ team name?
One and a half handfuls out of tens of thousands of individuals claiming to be
full-blooded, half-blooded, and even fractional Indians, according to a number
of articles on the subject. For example, in September 2004, the Washington
Times ran an article, “Indians
give a cheer for the name ‘Redskins
‘”:
Ninety
percent of American Indians say the name Washington Redskins does not offend
them, according to a new national survey.
Only 9
percent of polled Indians say they find the name of Washington’s professional
football team “offensive,” according to the results of the University of
Pennsylvania’s National Annenberg Election Survey. The other 1 percent did not
respond.
“I
thought more people would have had” problems with the name, said Adam Clymer,
political director of the survey, which questioned more than 65,000 Americans
of all races and ethnic groups between Oct. 7, 2003, and Sept. 20, 2004.

There are bogus Indians. The most notorious of them still living are Elizabeth
Warren
, a Harvard professor and politician who claims to have Cherokee
blood in her background. There is Ward Churchill, another obnoxious academic
who called all the people who died on 9/11 in the World Trade Center “Little
Eichmanns.” He also claimed to be of Cherokee blood, until real Cherokees outed
him. Reason Magazine ran an interesting column in 2012 on the most notable fake
Indians, “5
Other Fake Indians Besides Elizabeth Warren
.”
My car once broke down in Gallup, New
Mexico on a cross-country trip. Nearby was a Navajo Indian reservation. The mechanics
who fixed my car were half-Navajo brothers who did not live on the reservation.
We “bonded,” because their family name was…Cline, as well. They weren’t
“red” or even bronze, but rather tan, grew moustaches (full-bloods
are genetically
incapable
of growing facial hair or hair anywhere on their bodies), and
didn’t have many nice things to say about the reservation Indians (drunks, lazy,
always fighting, looking for a fast buck, etc.). I introduced them to the idea
that perhaps being dependents of the federal government wasn’t doing them much
of a favor. The indolence encouraged by the federal government was inherently
destructive. They agreed.
I think the only “redskins”
that might exist have a severe case of sunburn.  
And the only “redskins” who
would feel “offended” by the name are at root tribalists who have a
vested interest in being a “minority” ready to accept free money and
taxpayer-paid benefits. The federal government is inclined to make them
dependent, too.
But, then, the federal government, especially
under President Barack Obama, wants to put the whole country on a reservation.

Season Two of Fear and Loathing: A Review

I
endured eleven episodes of the thirteen-episode Season Two of Orange is the New Black, which debuted
June 6th. I can’t watch the rest of the series. The whole series, Seasons One
and Two, leave me numb. No. Indifferent.  See my first review of the series published
last August, “Fear
and Loathing are the New Freedoms
,” for a synopsis of this
naturalistic, rubbish-tossing romp through the garbage bin of contemporary
society and culture.
Orange is on its way to becoming a liberal cult classic,
when it’s simply drawn-out agitprop for the Left.
Set
in a minimum security women’s prison in Connecticut, it focuses on the
conflicts of the female inmates as well on those of those of the security
staff. There are no heroes, nor any heroines in the series. Staff and inmates
alike, they are all criminals of one stripe or another. The series is purported
to be based on Piper
Kerman’s
book about her
time in such a prison.
The
series, both Seasons, boils over with graphic lesbian sex scenes (with a few
heterosexual ones thrown in for “diversity’s” sake), graphic violence
among the prisoners, conniving, lying, and scheming by everyone, racial
tensions between whites, blacks, and Latinos (who have now taken over the
kitchen), competition among “queens” of the roost in bringing in
contraband things like lipstick, cell phones, dope, and even junk food.
The
word “f…k” occurs seven or eight dozen times in the dialogue, the
term “c…t” perhaps half as often. Other obscene slang terms are
sprinkled throughout for good measure, to make sure viewers understand that
they’re not watching Leave it to Beaver,
or the old Perry Mason. Or even a
James Cagney gangster movie. There’s more “realism” in Jimmy Stewart’s
Call Northside 777
than in Orange.
I
reached a point where I don’t really care if any of the characters resolve
their external or internal conflicts. I could develop as little or no empathy
for any of the characters as I could for Jeremiah Wright, Gloria Steinman, or
Vladimir Putin. I felt as though I wanted to put every one of them out of their
misery. Including the head of the prison, a tall, shapely brunette who is the
prison’s administrator and is as corrupt as the rest of the characters.
Including one black inmate character, “Crazy Eyes,” who is turned by
a black witch, dope racketeer, and manipulator of feeble minds, called “Vee,”
from a harmless, mildly amusing whacko into a vicious thug and brainwashed
toady who beats up a fellow black inmate on orders from Vee. Vee also sics her
black girl thugs on the dethroned ruler of the kitchen, Russian”Red,”
whose contraband racket she wants to take over.
Black
racism against especially whites is lovingly approved by Kohan in the series. Her
own “white guilt” and “white privilege” in the series  is frowned upon in no uncertain terms. Vee and
her thugs even pick on a helpless inmate who is undergoing chemo therapy – because
she’s white.
In
the name of racial “diversity,” the inmate cast is almost evenly
divided between whites, blacks, and Latinos. There are English subtitles for
dialogue between the Latinos. Most of the blacks are trash-talking, ugly,
overweight, petulant, and in-your-face aggressive and mean-minded. It can’t be
that the writer, director, and producer of the series, Jenji Kohan, who
herself resembles a cross between an alien from a low-grade science fiction
movie and an apprentice clown, is waging a campaign to eradicate black
stereotypes. The racism of her black and Latino characters is almost palpable.
In
the name of realism, there are plenty of toilet scenes. Some scenes are so
gross I won’t bother mentioning them. I’m surprised I’ve gotten this far in a
review of this apex of cultural expression. As unsavory as watching this series
has been, I still felt obligated to say something about Season Two, even in as
brief a column as this one.
The
most pathetic characters in the series are white males. I don’t even want to
“go there.”
There
has been much politically correct ballyhoo about Laverne Cox, the transgender
inmate and house hairdresser. Time Magazine, now on its last legs as a weekly
news vehicle, ran a cover story on him – yes, him, because he had his gender-defining equipment removed, but he
still has male chromosomes, and a new
review
of Season Two. Deal with it, “Laverne.” The Independent on
June 6th asserted in its fawning review:
What OITNB does
differently is simple; it bestows on all its characters the same depth,
complexity and detailed back-story that is usually reserved for the lead. Thus,
the show utilises a large, diverse cast to embrace issues of race, gender
identity, sexism, income inequality, mental health and plenty else besides. Add
to this the fact that it includes more interesting roles for women than all the
other quality US TV dramas combined, and you have some television really worth
getting excited about….
Orange is The New Black is great entertainment, but
it’s also an elegant rebuke to those who grumbling resist on-screen diversity.
They worry it will somehow stifle creativity, when in fact quite the opposite
is true. As Cox told TIME: “There’s not just one trans story,” and the same is
true of every other oft-stereotyped group on television. Here, then, is the
stockpile of original, untold stories drama commissioners always claim they’re
crying out for – and it was right underneath their noses all along.
Why
should anyone care about the fate of these characters? No rational person
would. Orange is the New Black is a
clinical study of a cockroach nest, or of a colony of bagworms. That, however,
is the state of the culture. But, don’t take my word for it. Here is a portion of
Time
Magazine
‘s cultural and racial diversity lapdog-review review of Season
Two:
Having built out dozens of colorfully named characters
(Taystee, Yoga Jones, Black Cindy), the sprawling Orange is like Game
of Thrones
: Prison. In prison, after all, a few square feet becomes
[sic] a world. One new subplot
involves prisoners training cockroaches to carry cigarettes from cell to cell:
in lockup, a hallway can be the vast Sahara and a bug a camel laden with
riches. Like Thrones, Orange is partly a story of territory, allegiance
and clans, here divided largely by race. This tension heightens with the
arrival of Vee (Lorraine Toussaint), a magnetic, leonine recidivist who
promises to restore the days when black women ran the prison. (The Latinas
presently control the kitchen, Litchfield’s Iron Throne.)
New York magazine is
so gag-ga over Orange that it has over twenty-five separate blog sites devoted
to the series.
I end
this review with a reader comment from Media
Research
on a mention of Hillary Clinton in the dialogue, in which the term
“dictator” in reference to Clinton was edited out (before it was, I
heard it). It appropriately captures the conscious, intended illiteracy of the
series:
As people, I know that orange is old European’s black
color represented fascism regime in gypsy Hitler’s time. Orange color
represented flame that, greek fascists in Germany, root in a tribe origin from
Crete Island, Greece would cover in a flame all the world. Orange color was
created by ‘them’ mixed yellow with a red color (jealousy and a love). You can
find to one picture ,who Bloomberg is handling two guns ‘one red, one yellow’
.You can find also orange color to NYC taxi, school bus and some cars or,
motorcycles with a flame design. A gypsy’s symbol is ‘a duck’ who has beak’s
orange, too. La,la,la,la….
I don’t
know if it’s true what the reader meant about the color’s symbolism. It doesn’t
matter.
As
I observed in the first review of Orange
is the New Black
last year, the prison society depicted in the series is
the limit of Jenji Kohan’s “vision” of what American society is and
what she wishes it to be – permanently – so she can get a kick out of
compressing all the wusses, deadbeats, gender-confused “persons,” racists,
and antagonistic tribes together and watch her notion of fireworks.
No
thanks. End of review. I’ve had enough. Excuse me while I wash the cesspool from
myself.

Obama’s Treasonous Taliban Tête à Tête

One
can reach a point in the business of political (and even cultural) commentary
where one gags at the latest episode of chicanery and blatant fraud. Living in
a constant state of crisis, outrage and doom, as we have been doing under
President Barack Obama’s tenure in the White House, is not psychologically
healthy. Gagging and revulsion are defense mechanisms, warning signs that one
is becoming jaded, numb, and dangerously desensitized.” News of the latest
White House adventure in nihilism, in this instance the premeditated
“swap” of an alleged deserter and traitor for five Gitmo hard-case
killer Islamists, begins as a cresting wave that looks squeaky clean – thanks
to government PR and Susan
Rice
– until it washes over you and you learn it’s packed with rocks, sand,
jelly fish, and what’s found in septic tanks.
That’s
what I felt when the Bowe Bergdahl news broke. Mentally paraphrasing Henry II
about Thomas Becket, “Who will rid me of this troublesome Progressive
priest
?,” I steeled myself to deal with it. While I contend that
Obama’s policies are politically fascist, in terms of his domestic policies, however,
beneath all the Alinsky-esque manipulation and subterfuge, he is fundamentally a
nihilist. His actions are consciously, deliberately, and purposefully nihilist.
He is bent on destroying this country.
Most
commentators and pundits do not grasp this, not even the brightest and most
perceptive ones, not even the ones imbued with such outrage and palpable
disgust with Obama that they are calling for his censure or impeachment. The
devil is not in the details of Obama’s actions. The devil is Obama himself. The
details don’t concern him. He is their author and the details are a
distraction.
Perhaps
it’s because the commentators and pundits are observing what they believe is
some mandatory decorum when it comes to judging Obama or anyone else in such
high office, and so pull that final knockout punch out of respect for an office
Obama clearly does not respect himself. But Obama’s malice and malignity are
there for the seeing. My well-paid colleagues won’t take that last step with a
moral condemnation and deem him a worse traitor than Bowe Bergdahl.
That
they very likely fear the wrath of a president and a government with unlimited
powers to harass, smear, persecute, and destroy is proof enough that they know that Obama is evil.
I’ve
been calling him evil from the very beginning, back in 2008. You can say that
only so many times.



Here is one way of
not grasping Obama’s evil. Charles Krauthammer in his Washington Post column of
June 5th, “Free
him, then try him
,” gets the essential details of the Bergdahl
“swap” and neatly presents them:
America doesn’t negotiate with
terrorists
.
Nonsense. Of course we do.
Everyone does, while pretending not to. The Israelis, by necessity the toughest
of all anti-terror fighters, in
2011 gave up 1,027 prisoners
, some with blood on their hands, for one
captured staff sergeant.
Krauthammer
might also have mentioned our negotiating with Hamas and the Muslim
Brotherhood, and wanting very badly to negotiate with Iran, if only the ayatollahs
would stop laughing at us. Not to mention the Taliban and Al Queda.
The administration did not give
Congress 30-day notice as required by law.
Of all the jurisdictional
disputes between president and Congress, the president stands on the firmest
ground as commander in chief. And commanders have the power to negotiate
prisoner exchanges.  Moreover, from where
did this sudden assertion of congressional prerogative spring? After five years
of supine acquiescence to President Obama’s multiple usurpations, Congress
suddenly becomes exercised over a war power — where its claim is weakest.
Congress does nothing in the face
of 23
executive alterations
of the president’s own Affordable Care Act. It does
nothing when Obama
essentially enacts
by executive order the Dream Act, which Congress had
refused to enact. It does nothing when the Justice Department unilaterally
rewrites drug laws
. And now it rises indignantly on its hind legs because
it didn’t get 30
days’ notice of a prisoner swap
?
This
is true. Congress has not done much to rein in Obama’s repeated abuses of the
office’s executive powers, except to complain about being bypassed, nor has the
Supreme Court. And it was that very same 30-day notice law Obama himself signed.  He has been flouting law since he assumed
office. It’s nothing new. Also worthy of mention is Obama’s habit of bypassing
Congress by simply ordering the various bureaucracies and enforcement agencies
to implement his agendas, for example, by ordering the EPA to enforce his new
coal emissions
regulations, or the IRS to target Tea Party and other
conservative groups for surveillance and delaying regulatory paperwork to
register as non-profits.
The
Taliban release endangers national security.

Indeed it does. The five
released detainees
are unrepentant, militant and dangerous. They’re likely
to go back into the field and resume their war against local and foreign
infidels, especially us. The administration
pretense
that we and the Qataris will monitor them is a joke. They can start
planning against us tonight. And if they decide to leave Qatar tomorrow, who’s
going to stop them?
NATO?
The EU? Electronic ankle bracelets? An unarmed, picture-taking drone with a
megaphone that would remind them not to venture from Qatar? None of the above. Krauthammer
scores Obama’s ventriloquist dummy, Susan Rice, current national security
advisor and former U.S. ambassador to the UN, for broaching the first “talking
points
“:
What is it with Susan Rice and
the Sunday morning talk shows? This time she said Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl had served
in Afghanistan “with
honor and distinction
” — the biggest whopper since she insisted the Benghazi
attack was caused by a video
.
Krauthammer
cuts through all the speculation and second-guessing about Bergdahl’s status
and writes:
If he’s a defector — joined the
enemy to fight against his country — then he deserves no freeing. Indeed, he
deserves killing, the way
we kill other enemies
in the field, the way we killed Anwar al-Awlaki, an
American who had openly joined al-Qaeda. A U.S. passport does not entitle a
traitor to any special protection. (Caveat: If a POW is turned,
Stockholm-syndrome-like, after falling captive, these condemnatory
considerations don’t apply.)
Assume, however — and we will
find out soon enough — that Bergdahl was not a defector. Simply wanted out — a
deserter who walked or wandered away from his duty and his comrades for reasons
as yet unknown.
Two imperatives should guide the
answer. Bergdahl remains a member of the U.S. military and therefore is (a)
subject to military justice and (b) subject to the soldiers’ creed that we
don’t leave anyone behind. What to do? Free him, then try him. Make the swap
and then, if the evidence is as strong as it now seems, court-martial him for
desertion.
Paul
Waldman’s June 6th Washington Post article, “It’s
true: Bergdahl wasn’t a ‘hero.’ So what?
“reflects the cynical malaise
that governs the news media in an attempt to analyze the probity of the swap
and the legitimacy of the concept of heroism.
Some years ago, the country came
to a collective realization that the people who fight in a war don’t bear
personal responsibility for whether the war was a good idea in the first place.
This was an immensely salutary development, one that led to the important
acknowledgement of the risks that service members take on. The image of the
military improved dramatically, and Americans began looking at those in uniform
with new admiration. Service members couldn’t walk through an airport without a
dozen people walking up to them to thank them for their service. That’s all
good.
But along with it came a
devaluation of the idea of heroism. We began to regularly refer to any and all
members of the military as “heroes,” without any regard to what they had or
hadn’t done in their service. If we use the same term to refer to someone who
risked his life to save his fellow soldiers in a valley in Afghanistan as we do
for someone who effectively conducted data entry for personnel files at a base
in North Carolina, “hero” has lost nearly all its meaning.
Conservatives are up
in arms
over the fact that Susan Rice said Bergdahl “served with honor and
distinction” before he was captured by the Taliban. But how many times have we
heard that phrase? It’s become a meaningless throwaway line. These days, if a
soldier managed not to frag his commanding officer and drive his Humvee off a
cliff, we say he “served with honor and distinction.”
If
the concept of heroism, or claiming that someone “served with honor and
distinction,” has become a meaningless concept or a throwaway line,”
who made it so? It wasn’t Susan Rice alone. For example, Hillary Clinton’s
touted “accomplishments” while Secretary of State have become a
source of humor and mockery, those accomplishments having the character of a
helium balloon that deflates or explodes and falls to the earth every time it
rises to the sun of the truth that she accomplished absolutely nothing. Yet,
while the Left and most of the news media know that she achieved little else
but antagonism among our allies and enemies, few dare to state that publicly.
This
is self-censorship, if not tweaking news stories fit to print that overlay a
news medium’s own political agenda.
Sharyl
Attkisson, the reporter who resigned from CBS because of the network’s penchant
for self-censorship and for submitting to government pressure not to run
stories critical of Obama and his administration, wrote in a June 3rd
article, “Exclusive:
Journalism’s Very Dangerous Trend
,” in the Daily Signal:
Sharyl Attkisson, an award-winning
investigative reporter who resigned from CBS
News earlier this year
, says the news media are heading down a dangerous
path with attempts to “censor or block stories” that don’t align with their
preferred agenda.“There’s a tendency in the news media, on the part of some
managers, to censor or block stories that don’t fall in line with the message
they want sent to the viewers,” Attkisson said in an exclusive interview with
The Daily Signal.
“I think that’s really a very
dangerous perspective to have.”In the first of three segments, Attkisson shared
her views on journalism and life after CBS News. Her newest investigative
report—about
oxygen trials conducted on premature babies
—was published by The Daily
Signal today. She will serve as a senior independent contributor to the news
organization, which made its debut Tuesday.
Attkisson made headlines in March
when she left CBS News after a 20-year career at the TV network. In subsequent
interviews, she cited her inability
to get her stories on the air
.
On
her own blog
site
, Attkisson comments on the Bergdahl/Taliban “swap,” and,
like Charles Krauthammer, cautions calm in rushing to judgment on Bergdahl’s
behavior five years ago:
Diana
West, in her WND article of June 5th article, “‘No Men Left Behind’?,  bursts the balloon of Obama’s assertion about
the purported American “tradition” of not leaving behind captured
soldiers.
It is probably the poisonous reek
of government lies breaking open that has ignited this passion – so many lies
and so much subterfuge that a clear story has yet to take shape. But this
collective outrage over Afghanistan – a first in the history of our long war
there – shouldn’t all be spent on Bergdahl, or even on Obama. But I will save
that story for another day.
In the meantime, it’s worth
noting that the nation’s wrath is as understandable as it is real. Bergdahl
wasn’t captured as the government vaguely led us to believe, even going so far
as to prevent some of Bergdahl’s platoon-mates from talking about what happened
by having them sign nondisclosure agreements. We now know that as many as 14
American soldiers were killed trying to rescue Bergdahl. …
The president has invoked lofty
ideals to explain his decision to release five high-risk Taliban leaders from
Guantanamo Bay in exchange for Bergdahl. “The United States,” Obama said, “has
always had a pretty sacred rule and that is: We don’t leave our men or women in
uniform behind, and that dates back to the earliest days. Regardless of the
circumstances, whatever those circumstances may turn out to be, we still get an
American soldier back if he’s held in captivity. Period. Full stop. We don’t
condition that.”



It’s
a lie, writes West, or a statement made from nearly criminal ignorance of the
truth of American actions and policies in the past. She writes that the
“United States has routinely left huge numbers of our POW/MIAs behind.”
A widely renowned expert in
U.S.-Soviet relations, [Joseph D.] Douglass passed away on May 23 at age 78. It
was his searing 2002 book “Betrayed” that focused my attention on the most
ghastly betrayal of all: the betrayal by the U.S. government of literally thousands
of American POWs and MIAs who were left behind in Communist prisons after every
war America fought in the 20th century, from World War I (against the new
Bolshevik regime) to Vietnam.
In assessing the available
research, including a landmark 1990 report by the Republican minority staff of
the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, Douglass concluded that as many as
2,000 Americans were left behind after the Vietnam War, 5,000 to 8,000 after
the Korean War, 1,000 throughout the Cold War, and, staggeringly, between
15,000 and 20,000 after World War II. (I discuss this gruesome subject in my
book “American
Betrayal.”
)
These giant numbers are not only
shocking, they are numbing to the point of sounding fantastic to those among us
who have only heard politicians such as Sen. John McCain or Secretary of State
John Kerry on the subject, or followed mainstream media coverage thereof. Such
coverage is one of consistent denial of the existence of these men, plus
ridicule for their advocates. A breakthrough of sorts came in 2005 when Norman
Kass, the American chief of the U.S.-Russia Joint Commission on POW/MIAs, told
CNN that he would be “comfortable” acknowledging that “hundreds” of American
servicemen in the 20th century had actually ended up in the Soviet-era
slave-labor camps known as the Gulag Archipelago. I can hardly think of a more
sickening admission.

And, as West details in American Betrayal,
the Soviets, our itinerant ally against Nazi Germany, denied it had any
American POWS or even British POWs “captured” from German prisoner of
war camps, and our State Department, FDR and later Harry Truman went along with
the Soviet lie in order to placate a totalitarian régime which we had let
conquer and ravish half of Europe. It was only after the collapse of the Soviet
Union that the truth began to emerge when Soviet archives were opened to
Western writers and scholars.
Daniel
Greenfield connects the VA “waiting list” scandal with the timing of
Bergdahl’s “quick” release from captivity by the Taliban in his June
1st FrontPage article, “Secretary of Defense:
After 5 Years, We Acted ‘Quickly’ to Bring Bowe Bergdahl Home
“:
Secretary of Defense Hagel appears
a bit confused by the word
“quickly”. After 5 years and multiple releases
of Taliban commanders and Gitmo terrorists, this isn’t quickly. But I wonder
what the time overlap between the decision to make the deal and the VA scandal
was. Would Bergdahl still be held captive if Obama’s poll numbers weren’t
taking a beating over the abuse of vets?
Commenting
on the deal brokered by Qatar, Greenfield noted:
The Qatari regime is entangled
with Al Qaeda and Islamic terrorists around the world. But at least Hagel knows
who his masters are.
Greenfield
quotes from a Washington
Post
article of May 31st that details the career resumes of the
five Taliban creatures released by Obama back to combat duty against this
country. He posits in another column that the freeing of these killers is but
an overture to closing
down Gitmo
.
George
Will, in his June 4th Washington Post column, “When
a president goes rogue
,” comes closest to condemning Obama for what he
is, a power-lusting demagogue with an agenda to humiliate and demote this
country to the status of just another sniveling, European welfare state
knock-off, beholden to an all-powerful, humongous, unelected bureaucracy and
climate changers and submitters to Islam. Opening with a remark about Susan
Rice’s yadda yadda about Bergdahl’s alleged service with “honor and
distinction”:
Perhaps she did not know, in
advance of the swap of five
terrorists
for Sgt.
Bowe Bergdahl
, the, shall we say, ambiguities about Bergdahl’s
departure from his platoon
in Afghanistan and the reportedly deadly
consequences of his behavior. If so, then she has pioneered a degree of
incompetence exotic even for this 10-thumbed administration. If, however, she
did know and still allowed Obama to present this as a mellow moment of national
satisfaction, she is condign punishment for his choice of such hirelings.
Perhaps this exchange really is,
as Obama said
in defending it
, an excellent thing “regardless of the circumstances,
whatever those circumstances may turn out to be.” His confidence in its
excellence is striking, considering that he acknowledges that we do not know
the facts about what would seem to be important “circumstances”….
Obama did not comply with the law
requiring presidents to notify Congress 30 days before such exchanges of
prisoners at Guantanamo. Politico can be cited about this not because among the
media it is exceptionally, well, understanding of Obama’s exuberant
notion of executive latitude but because it is not. Politico headlined a story
on his noncompliance with the law “Obama
May Finally Be Going Rogue on Gitmo
.” It said Obama’s “assertive” act
“defied Congress” — Congress, not the rule of law — in order “to get that
process [of closing the prison at Guantanamo] moving.” It sent “a clear
message” that “Obama is now willing to wield his executive powers to get the
job done.” Or, as used to be said in extenuation of strong leaders, “to make
the trains run on time.”
 Hitler and Mussolini got their trains running
on time, too. But, at what price?
And
about Bergdahl himself? Michelle Malkin broke the story about him five years
ago, as she reports in her latest Townhall column, “Exclusive:
The Story You Haven’t Yet Heard About Bowe Bergdahl’s Desertion
,” of June
4th:
Five years ago, I publicly raised
questions about Bowe Bergdahl’s desertion from Blackfoot Company, 1-501
Infantry (Airborne), 4th Brigade Combat Team (Airborne), 25th Infantry
Division.
A few weeks after his so-called
“capture” in late June 2009, three conflicting accounts surfaced:
U.S. officials told the Associated Press Bergdahl had “walked off”
the base with three Afghans; the Taliban claimed on its website that “a
drunken American soldier had come out of his garrison” and into their
arms; and Bergdahl claimed in his Taliban “hostage video” that he had
“lagged behind a patrol” before being captured.
Five years ago, one of the brave
soldiers who risked his life to search for Bergdahl answered my questions, and
I published his statement on July 20, 2009: “I know the story and the
accounts that he was drunk or that he was lagging behind on patrol are not true
— this soldier planned this move for a long time. He walked off the post with
a day’s supply of water and had written down before that he wanted to live in
the mountains. … He is an embarrassment to everyone who has worn the
uniform.”
After news broke this weekend of
President Obama’s trade of five high-level Taliban commanders at Gitmo for
Bergdahl’s “freedom,” I heard from another soldier who served on the
search team. “Many of my brothers died because of Bergdahl’s actions, and
this has been a very hard day for all Geronimos,” he told me after documenting
his proof of service. Other journalists ignored his attempts to get the truth
out.
Finally,
Fox News on June 6th ran a
detailed but cautionary story
on Bergdahl’s dubious status as a
“captive” American soldier.
U.S. Army Sgt. Bowe Bergdahl at
one point during his captivity converted to Islam, fraternized openly with his
captors and declared himself a “mujahid,” or warrior for Islam,
according to secret documents prepared on the basis of a purported eyewitness
account and obtained by Fox News.
The reports indicate that
Bergdahl’s relations with his Haqqani captors morphed over time, from periods
of hostility, where he was treated very much like a hostage, to periods where,
as one source told Fox News, “he became much more of an accepted
fellow” than is popularly understood. He even reportedly was allowed to
carry a gun at times.
The documents show that Bergdahl
at one point escaped his captors for five days and was kept, upon his
re-capture, in a metal cage, like an animal. In addition, the reports detail
discussions of prisoner swaps and other attempts at a negotiated resolution to
the case that appear to have commenced as early as the fall of 2009.
Such
stories are certainly of immeasurable value and serve to reveal to Americans the
extent of Obama’s feckless but premeditated policies in dealing with Islamic jihadists
and supremacists.
Such
stories will accrue strength when they identify, without reservation, the
precise nature of Obama’s character and actions. Until their authors man up and
throw caution to the winds, thinking – “How much more White House enmity
can we earn, anyway?” – I will continue to gag.

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén