The Official Blog Of Edward Cline

Month: February 2016

How to Enable Islam…and Evil

Greenfield, in his Sultan Knish columns, writes about Islam from a perspective
that is 100% objective and rational, a perspective I wish more people were
capable of grasping. They don’t need to emulate his writing style or acquire as
in-depth knowledge of Islam as his to appreciate the value he offers readers,
indeed, offers the nation. Grasping the unchanging and unchangeable nature of
Islam is a simple exercise in non-contradictory identification. A is A. Islam
is Islam.

Sultan Knish, intellectual enemy 
all Social Justice Warriors, 

in government and out.

“Bad” Islam is
just “Good” Islam in a bad mood, he writes. “Bad” Islam has nothing to do with
Islam. It’s as though “Bad” Islam were not quoting from the Koran, but
from the Peanuts cartoons and the translation always gets skewed in the
Greenfield is not
an Islam-basher for the sake of bashing Islam. With his unbeatable gift for
irony, he unleashes the same no-holds-barred passion as he bashes phony
politicians (is there a difference?), and phony technologies (like solar and
wind power), and phony humanitarians who profit from phony charities and leave
chump change for the alleged beneficiaries (re Mark Zuckerberg, Bill Gates, the
Clintons, George Clooney, and two or three dozen more extraordinarily rich
people who want to “do good”). The private organizations “resettling” Muslim
“refugees” in American cities, and which are paid and subsidized by the U.S.
government, are a case in point.
He recognizes
Islam’s root poisons and premises and tactics. And he does this no better than
in his recent column “Good
Islam and Bad Islam
” of February 16th. He writes from the assumption that
his readers are conversant in current events that concern Islamic terrorism. He
dwells in a different but no less effective and persuasive way on the means and
ends of Islamic jihad against the West from Stephen Coughlin’s exhaustive but
compelling treatise on the delusional policies of our political and
intelligence communities in Catastrophic
Failure: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jiahd
Friends of Islam,
collectivists of a variety of stripes, BDS
advocates, fiends of the Palestinians, flaccid but repellent Israel-haters,
and Democrats (and most Republicans) all share an ideological allergy to reason,
objectivity, and facts. It’s as though If they attempted reason, they would
probably break out in spots or contract some horrid disease. They would be
baffled by Greenfield’s opening line in his column:
Our only hope of defeating
Islamic terrorism is Islam. That’s our whole counterterrorism strategy.
Some will remain
in a state of bafflement, from either a natural state of inert ignorance or
because their minds will slam shut when they smell a truth that must not be
acknowledged. Others who exercise their minds and indulge in, for them, rare
spates of analysis will understand that the statement is a nose-tweaking of our
current “Countering Violent Extremism” policy (CVE), a policy which is chary of
even naming Islam as the foremost incubator of “violent extremism.” (See
Coughlin’s book for the tortuous road to self-delusion surrounding “CVE”), lest
our intelligence agency risk the charge of “Islamophobia.” As a generic term,
“extremism” could mean anything from armed American militias to taking the U.S.
Constitution seriously to demanding that all dairy products sold in the country
be lactose-free.
Islam, however,
was waging terrorism against the West for decades and concurrently with that of
the IRA, Basque separatists, and the Belgian
separatists. The last three have wilted from just about everyone’s
memory. Only terrorism rooted in Islam remains energized. Echoing Coughlin, Greenfield’s
next sentence, however, would clarify things for the baffled and the
But Islamic terrorism is not a
separate component of Islam that can be cut off from it. Not only is it not
un-Islamic, but it expresses Islamic religious imperatives.
That is, it
expresses Sharia law. Imposing Sharia on everyone is the end-all and be-all of
Islamic Jihad. The triumvirate of Islamic terrorism is jihad, dawah (or proselytizing)
and the Ummah (what I like to refer
to as the Borg hive or collective, or the Islamic zombie herd). In its quest to
thoroughly enfeeble the West’s resistance to Islamic conquest I wrote in “Interfaith
Bridges to Islam
…No member of the tripartite
alliance of jihad, dawah, and ummah
in the organizing principle, which is Sharia, can nullify, frustrate, or
contradict the other two. They work together as one entity in an aggressive
ideological gestalt.  
Greenfield notes:
Muslim religious leaders have
occasionally issued fatwas against terrorism, but terrorism for Muslim clerics,
like sex for Bill Clinton, is a matter of definition. The tactics of terrorism,
including suicide bombing and the murder of civilians, have been approved by
fatwas from many of the same Islamic religious leaders that our establishment
deems moderate. And the objective of terrorism, the subjugation of non-Muslims,
has been the most fundamental Islamic imperative for the expansionistic
religion since the days of Mohammed.
It is important
to note that when fatwas are issued by Islamic clerics against terrorism, they
are in fact condemnations of Muslims killing other Muslims. The fatwa does not
include killing non-Muslims – except if the non-Muslims sue for “peace” and
submit. To Islam, it is always open season on infidels, Jews, and other
non-Muslims. This has been true for about 1,400 years. And also on Muslims of
differing faiths: Sunnis vs. Shi’ites, and vice versa.
Greenfield continues:
Our strategy, in Europe and
America, under Bush and under Obama, has been to artificially subdivide a Good
Islam from a Bad Islam and to declare that Bad Islam is not really Islam. Bad
Islam, as Obama claims [but Bush said it first], “hijacked” a peaceful
religion. Secretary of State Kerry calls Bad Islam’s followers, “apostates”.
ISIS speaks for no religion. It has no religion. Which means the Islamic State
must be a bunch of atheists.
Yes. It’s
always  a bunch of atheists who
repeatedly quote the Koran before,
during, or after their latest round of butchery.
Let’s concoct a
Saturday Night Live skit to demonstrate how CVE works – or doesn’t work. Say,
you are an innocent infidel, out walking your pet armadillo. A female jihadist
walks up to you and her burqa shows a suspicious bump beneath it. She says to
you, “I hate armadillos! Allahu Akbar!” And she blows herself and you up.
You, the suicide
bomber, and the armadillo are but guts and blood all over the place, and
basically unrecognizable. The FBI calls in “Dexter,” a
blood splatter pattern expert and graduate of CVE Academy. He hands in his
splatter report:  With meticulous
precision, he details the trail of blood caused by the bomb, and concludes that
while your scattered remains and those of the armadillo are identifiable, there
was no third person. No suicide bomber. He suggests that you were the
unfortunate victim of a renegade quark from an alternate universe that intruded
into our universe and exploded on contact. Case closed.  Islam is not indicted. Muslims have not been
denigrated. Their “self-esteem” as Muslims has been preserved.
Or perhaps Dexter
will offer an alternative explanation for the “violence”: There really was a
third person, a suicide bomber who was an armadillo-hating “extremist” who also
hated armadillo pet owners.
That’s how CVE
works. Blame anyone – anything – but the identifiable perpetrator. But there’s
nothing even darkly humorous about how CVE works and how it contributes to the
ongoing Islamic jihad with real blood being splattered in Europe and in the U.S.
discusses the Mainstream Media version of CVE:
After every terror attack, the
media painstakingly constructs a narrative to determine why former moderates
like Anwar Al-Awlaki, the Tsarnaevs or the San Bernardino killers turned bad
without resorting to religious explanations. Their efforts at rationalization
quickly become ridiculous; Nidal Hasan, the Fort Hood killer, contracted
airborne PTSD, Anwar Al-Awlaki, the head of Al Qaeda in Yemen, became an
“extremist” because he was afraid the FBI had found out about his prostitutes,
and the Times Square bomber turned into a terrorist because his “American
Dream” was ruined.
So, formerly “Good”
Muslims turn “Bad” for every reason under the sun but the non-negotiable moral
imperative in Sharia to kill non-Muslims. Let’s hear another doozy: “I killed
all those people in the Paris concert hall because I gained 30 pounds, because the
Jews and infidels control food distribution and foist non-halal, saturated fat food on Muslims, causing them to have heart
attacks.” Is that reason any better – or more ludicrous – than what one can
hear mouthed by photogenic talking heads on CNN or Fox?
Nobody, they conclude, becomes
an Islamic terrorist because of Islam. Instead there are a thousand unrelated
issues, having nothing to do with Islam, which creates the Muslim terrorist.
Even the term “Radical Islamic Jihadist”, an absurd circumlocution (is there a
moderate Islamic Jihadist?), has become a badge of courage on one side and a
dangerous, irresponsible term that provokes violence on the other.
One might guess
that a “Radical Islamic Jihadists” likes to slaughter people by the dozen; a “moderate
Islamic Jihadist” will settle for one or two, perhaps running Jews down with
cars, or resorting to the knife; he’s a humanitarian with limited jihadi
resources). Greenfield asks:
But what is the distinction
between Good Islam and Bad Islam? It isn’t fighting ISIS. Al Qaeda and the
Taliban do that. It isn’t terrorism. Our Muslim allies, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan,
Turkey and Qatar, are hip deep in the terror trade. It isn’t equality for
non-Muslims. No Muslim country under Sharia law could have that. Equality for
women? See above.

What are the metrics that distinguish Good Islam and Bad Islam? There aren’t
any. We can’t discuss the existence of Bad Islam because it would reveal that
Bad Islam and Good Islam are really the same thing.
There is no
measurable difference between Good and Bad Islam. They are one and the same. They
hale from the same malevolent pool of poisonous glop of wanting the unearned,
of envy, of jealousy, all insatiable appetites unless corrected by objective
justice. Good, non-violent Islam cajoles its auditors into believing Muslims just
want to be left alone to follow their faith, and it’s unfair to ascribe the
actions of the few to the many. And the next thing you know the cajoled are
blood splatters on sidewalks and walls or are crushed smears of flesh in the
smoking ruins of the World Trade Center. But sooner or later Bad Islam loses
patience and starts sharpening its swords and machetes and giving lessons on
how to create bombs and how to fly planes into buildings. And then they do it.
Good Islam is a chiseler, writes
Greenfield. It plays its cards with a marked deck, and demands that it be the
dealer or banker.
To win over Good
Islam, we censor cartoons of Mohammed and criticism of the Koran, open our
borders, Islamize our institutions and then wait to see if we’re on the good
side of Good Islam. We adapt our societies and legal systems to Islamic norms
and hope that it’s enough to let us join the Good Islam Coalition. If we go on
at this rate, the experts will tell us that the only way to defeat Islamic
terrorism is for us to become Muslims. Only then will we become members in good
standing of Good Islam.
And when the card game is over, Islam
is left with piles of chips and all the pot.
Greenfield concludes:
The Jihad isn’t coming from some
phantom website. It’s coming from our Muslim allies. It’s coming from Pakistan,
Turkey, Qatar and Saudi Arabia. It’s coming from the Muslim Brotherhood and its
front groups. It’s coming from the moderate Muslim leaders that our leaders
pose with at anti-extremism conferences. And it’s coming from the mosques and
homes of the Muslims living in America. There is no Good Islam.
There is no Bad Islam. There is
just Islam.
The alternative
title for this column, of course, could just as well be, “How to Enable
Evil…and Islam.” 
A is A. Islam is
just Islam.
:  Blindfolding America in the
Face of Jihad
by Stephen Coughlin. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015.
788 pp.

Huma Abedin: Wicked Witch of Islam

I sometimes have
the fantasy of approaching Huma Abedin as a scout for Playboy Magazine and
offering her a cover and foldout deal with the publication. I’m more curious
about her possible response to such a proposition. Perhaps she would cast a
voodoo hex on me, or a curse, or turn to a handy Muslim djab or imam to issue a fatwa. Or perhaps she’d just slap my face
and sic the Secret Service goons on me. I’ve never seen her in a bathing suit,
so I’m not sure about her figure. Perhaps she isn’t Dallas Cheerleader

But she certainly
is a fashion plate – unlike her boss, that aging Goodyear blimp in pantsuits – and
apparently a well-paid one, at that. Huma is always expertly groomed, she looks
like she lives comfortably in the nicest, safest neighborhoods, and possesses
some poise, almost as much poise as Queen Noor of Jordan (Lisa Halaby) and that
regal fox, Queen Rania, wife of King Abdullah.

But one would not
be in error to claim that Huma Abedin is a card-carrying member of the Muslim
Brotherhood. Or, shall we say, of the Muslim Sisterhood? Not so far-fetched a
charge. There is an actual division of the Muslim Brotherhood called the Muslim
.  Hillary Clinton and Samantha
Power are only honorary members of that organization, because they’re not
Muslims. But they, too, work against U.S. interests, and against Israel’s. They,
too, wish to see Israel wiped from the map and the U.S. beholden to Islam.
There is so much
dope on Huma Abedin that it could serve as raw material for a Mata Hari movie,
and certainly enough to send her to prison at least on charges of treason, for helping
Hillary breach national security, together with half a dozen other Federal
felonies. She is, after all, an American citizen, born in 1976 in Kalamazoo,
Michigan. There are several blog sites that contain all the necessary
information that could be used to indict Abedin for at least acting as an agent
against the U.S. for a foreign power, particularly Saudi Arabia, and generally,
for the Muslim Brotherhood.

But, she’s not a
spy. Known spies are not usually invited to embed themselves in an enemy
administration; and the Obama administration is definitely an enemy – of the
U.S.  Abedin fills the same role that Colonel House played
to Woodrow Wilson, and that Harry Hopkins played to
Franklin D. Roosevelt – a backseat position, mostly out of the limelight, but able
to lean forward and whisper sweet-nothings of policy in the receptive executive’s
ear about what was practical and what wasn’t. Abedin could also be compared to
a high school driving instructor with his own steering wheel, and actually
steer the ship of state in the right direction – “right” being whatever Islamic
supremacists think is correct and proper and which conforms with the agenda
established by the Muslim Brotherhood’s and the Organization of Islamic
Cooperation. For details on that alliance, see Stephen Coughlin’s Catastrophic
: The Blindfolding of America in the Face of Jihad

Huma Abedin is
all for bringing into the U.S. as many Muslim “refugees
as possible. Which is tantamount to endorsing the introduction of Ebola and
malaria into the national culture.
Discover the
Networks has compiled a rap sheet on virtually every villain in American politics,
and Huma
has one of the longest dossiers. Her parental and political antecedents
are not murky, but in plain view.
….Her father, Syed Abedin
(1928-1993), was an Indian-born scholar who had worked as a visiting professor
at Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz University in the early Seventies.

Huma’s mother, Saleha
Mahmood Abedin
, is a sociologist known for her strong advocacy of Sharia Law.
A member of the Muslim Sisterhood (i.e., the Muslim
‘s division for women), Saleha is also a board member of the International
Islamic Council for Dawa and Relief
. This pro-Hamas
entity is part of the Union of
, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international
terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf
The Center for
Security Policy, in a special 2012 report on Abedin’s mother, “Center
Report Reveals Radical Islamist Views and Agenda
of Senior State Department
Official Huma Abedin’s Mother,” among other things lists the Sharia-compliant
rules of living in Islamic society.

The Mother Bear, Saleha S. Mahmood Abedin

In light of the escalating
controversy over the role being played in U.S. security policy-making by Ms.
Abedin and others with personal and/or professional ties to the Muslim
Brotherhood (see Part Eight of the Center for Security Policy’s online
curriculum at,
the revelations contained in a new Center reportTies
That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother

could not be more timely, or important….
Excerpts from Women in Islam
in Ties
That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mother

include Islamic shariah justifications for the following practices (square
brackets mine):
  • Stoning for
    Adultery when Married; Lashing for Adultery when Unmarried [un-Islamic behavior
    will not be tolerated]
  • No Death
    Penalty for the Murder of an Apostate [nor for the murder of an infidel]
  • Freedom of
    Expression Curtailed to What Benefits Islam [censorship; no criticism by
    women or men of Islam; criticism of Islam doesn’t much benefit it, does it?]
  • Women’s
    Right to Participate in Armed Jihad [knifing sprees in Israel, suicide
    vests, etc.]
  • Social
    Interaction Between the Sexes is Forbidden [partitioned off from the men
    during prayers and even in Starbucks]
  • Women Have
    No Right to Abstain from Sex with their Husbands [men cannot be denied
    their “rights”]
  • A Woman
    Should Not Let Anyone Into the House Unless Approved by Her Husband [he
    wouldn’t want any gays, Dallas Cheerleaders, or service dogs befouling his
  • Female
    Genital Mutilation is Allowed [to ensure that women experience no joy in
  • Man-Made
    Laws “Enslave Women” [didn’t Allah say man-made laws are an abomination
    to him? Man-made laws also enslave Muslim men]
Daughter Huma has
not repudiated any of this. At least, there is no report of her uttering a
single word, pro or con, about her mother’s endorsement of Fatima Umar Naseef’s
in Islam: A Discourse on Rights and Obligations
, originally published
in 1999 by International Islamic Committee for Woman & Child (IICWC).
President Barack Obama’s
February 3rd Baltimore
mosque speech
, says Steve Emerson of The
Investigative Project on Terrorism
, read like a Muslim Brotherhood script,
a kind of long-winded pep talk to make Muslims feel good and cause everyone
else hang their heads in shame. Who better to write such a speech than Huma
Abedin? Her English language skills are impeccable, and beyond the range of Obama’s
composition skills.

Discover the
Networks traces Abedin’s work life. She has not only been a career Clintonista,
but an editor of an anti-West journal.

At age 18, Huma Abedin returned
to the U.S. to attend George Washington University. In 1996 she began working
as an intern in the Bill
White House, where she was assigned to then-First Lady Hillary
Rodham Clinton
. Abedin was eventually
hired as an aide to Mrs. Clinton and has worked for her ever since, through
Clinton’s successful Senate runs (in 2000 and 2006) and her failed presidential
bid in 2008….
From 1996-2008, Abedin was
employed by the Institute
of Muslim Minority Affairs
(IMMA) as the assistant
of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority
(JMMA). At
the first seven of those years overlapped
with the al Qaeda-affiliated Abdullah Omar Naseef’s active presence at IMMA.
Abedin’s last six years at the Institute (2002-2008) were spent as a JMMA
editorial board member;
for one of those years, 2003, Naseef and Abedin served
together on that board.

Throughout her years with IMMA, Abedin remained a close aide to Hillary
Clinton. During Mrs. Clinton’s 2008 presidential primary campaign, a New
York Observer
of Abedin described her as “a trusted advisor to Mrs. Clinton, especially
on issues pertaining to the Middle East, according to a number of Clinton
associates.” “At meetings on the region,” continued the profile,
“… Ms. Abedin’s perspective is always sought out.”
And today Huma is
” of Hillary Clinton’s imploding presidential campaign. Given Clinton’s
long and consistent record of bare-faced lying, hither-and-yon hiding, bilious blustering,
and other crimes of her power-lusting hubris, “vice” is an appropriate name for
the position.
It’s all in the family,
too, the Abedin dawah against the U.S.
and the West. Aside from Saleha Abedin’s literary excursions, as Discover the Networks
Huma Abedin’s brother, Hassan
, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate
with the JMMA. Hassan was once a fellow
at the Oxford Center for Islamic Studies, at a time when the Center’s board
included such Brotherhood-affiliated figures as Yusuf al-Qaradawi and Abdullah
Omar Naseef.

Huma’s sister,
Heba Abedin (formerly known as “Heba A. Khaled”), is an assistant editor with JMMA,
where she served alongside Huma prior to the latter’s departure.
Huma Abedin is a
witch, a wicked, conniving, embedded agent for Islam. Perhaps her laugh is more
of a cackle, similar to that of the “Weird Ladies” in Macbeth. Or, better yet, like that of the Wicked Witch of the East.
She’s determined to get us, and our little dogs, too. We
all know how Muslims are brought up to hate dogs.

Affirmative Action in Film

Spike Lee and
other black actors are demanding more racial or ethnic “diversity” in film,
especially in films that win Oscars, regardless of whether or not  anyone wants to see them or their films, or
even if the films in which “minorities” appear deserve an Oscar or any kind of

What Lee and
other claimants of entitlements want is much like anti-smokers demanding that
all restaurants and bars be made smoke-free by law. That is, for the government
to favor their voting bloc or pressure group and to “socialize” private
property and private associations. To “socialize” private property and private
associations, however, is to seize them. Or, compare that with Muslims
demanding that supermarkets create a special section for halal food products.

What no one seems
to understand is that affirmative action in film – which is what #OscarsSoWhite
is demanding – will mean affirmative action in literature. Most films today are
based on novels or on adaptations from novels (mostly bad adaptations, and a
handful of decent ones). Or on film scripts. “Diversity” in employment has
always been linked to political correctness in speech and even in imagery. One
can see it in television and print advertisement. It also means “rationing” casting
parts to blacks and other minorities. It means forced social associations.
It means the
collectivization of artistic and moral values based on race, gender, and even
There is a minor
character in Ayn Rand’s prophetic novel, Atlas
, which, among other things, chronicles the destruction of America at
the hands of statists, egalitarians, career parasites (politicians and
bureaucrats), and other looters-by-law. The character is Balph
, a failed writer who nonetheless has political pull in Washington
Wikipedia has a
special site for breaking down Atlas
by plot and character. Here is the section on Balph
Called “the literary
leader of the age”, despite the fact that he is incapable of writing
anything that people actually want to read. What people want to read, he
says, is irrelevant. He complains that it is disgraceful that artists are
treated as peddlers, and that there
should be a law limiting the sales of books to ten thousand copies
. He is a
member of the Looters. Balph Eubank appears in section 161 (“The Non-Commercial”) (Italics mine)
And what does
Balph Eubank write? Books that no one wants to read. Books that are eminently
non-commercial. Unsalable. Ballast for the bookstores’ remainder and bargain
tables. But Eubank (and his brain brothers in other realms) want to repeal the
trader principle.
declares that suffering is the essence of life, and that free will,
achievement, and happiness are laughable concepts of old literature. Plot, he
says, is a primitive vulgarity in literature. Moreover, life is about suffering
and frustration, that the only thing to live for is brotherly love. He later says
that the machine age has destroyed man’s humanity, observing that Dagny Taggart
runs a railroad rather than practicing the beautiful art of the handloom and
bearing children.
Pennington, in her Forbes article of August 3rd, 2013, “Atlas
Shrugged’s Balph Eubank Long ago, Predicted the Impoverished Future for Writers
In Atlas Shrugged, in
the scene at the Reardens’ anniversary party, the satirical character with the
bombastic name Balph Eubank proposes an “Equalization of Opportunity Bill” for
literature, as had been suggested for industry earlier in Ayn Rand’s
novel.  Applied to literature, it would stipulate that no author would be
allowed to sell more than 10,000 copies of a book, opening up the field for
more writers because people would be forced to read a wider variety instead of
the same popular volumes.
Someone at the party wonders,
wouldn’t that be tough on writers?  Balph Eubank responds haughtily, “So
much the better.  Only those whose motive is not moneymaking should be
allowed to write”…. 
Remember that Atlas Shrugged was published in 1957,
long, long before terms such as “diversity” and “equal opportunity” became part
of the political and social lexicons and were embedded by fiat law in the
nation’s “consciousness.” I am not the first to say that Rand’s novel is
“prophetic”; columnists and pundits have said it countless times over the last
decade. In the current context, however, it is prophetic in the general
principles elucidated by Rand, principles that govern the Balkanization of a
country into warring pressure groups and noisy, belligerent tribes, into a
mosaic of separatist “communities,” a social and political disintegration
driven by the abandonment of reason and a deeply-rooted hostility to reality,
to individualism, and to objectivity.
But Rand could
never have imagined the numerous ugly forms the phenomenon has taken. Racial
and ethnic “diversity” in art in her time was not one of them, but if it went
unchallenged, it was bound to rear its life-freezing Medusa head as it has
today, with a dozen poisonous snakes wreathing on its head: homosexuality,
transgenderism, feminism; pedophilia; mental and physical disabilities, and
other abnormalcies whose advocates champion “rights.”
The hashtag
#OscarsSoWhite is a child of #BlackLivesMatter.  
Barack Obama is a party to the disintegration; he is one of its chief vehicles.
Even during his Baltimore
mosque address
on February 3rd, he touched on the absence of non-violent
Muslims in TV:
….Many [Americans] only hear
about Muslims and Islam from the news after an act of terrorism, or in
distorted media portrayals in TV or film, all of which gives this hugely
distorted impression….
Our television shows should
have some Muslim characters that are unrelated to national security —
(applause) — because — it’s not that hard to do.  There was a time when
there were no black people on television.  And you can tell good stories
while still representing the reality of our communities.
Mickey Mouse was not cast in the Coen
Brothers’ Hail, Caesar! Was he not black enough?
Or not white enough?
“There was a
time when there were no black people on television.” When? In the late 1940’s?
The early 1950’s? Beginning in the 1960’s, there were hundreds of black
on TV. Where was Obama when “The Jeffersons” was running? “Sanford
and Son”? Bill Cosby’s several sitcoms, including an animated show, “Fat
Albert”? And many more shows, some targeted to black viewers, others to the
general viewing audience.
And on the
Oscar “diversity
issue, the left-wing British Guardian, in its January 28th article, “
Obama on Oscars diversity
: are we giving everyone a fair shot?”
reported Obama’s nickel’s
president Barack
has spoken for the first time on Oscars diversity, suggesting that
the issue comes down to basic fairness and challenging Hollywood to ask if
people of all races are “getting a fair shot”.
the furor over all-white lists of nominees for this year’s ceremony as “just an
expression of this broader issue” Obama said the American film industry could
benefit creatively by championing the creativity of those from black and
minority ethnic backgrounds.
think that California is an example of the incredible diversity of this
country. That’s a strength,” he
told reporters at the White House
. “I think that when everyone’s story is
told … that makes for better art.” Added Obama: “It makes for better entertainment;
it makes everybody feel part of one American family, so I think as a whole the
industry should do what every other industry should do which is to look for
talent, provide opportunity to everybody. And I think the Oscar debate is
really just an expression of this broader issue. Are we making sure that
everybody is getting a fair shot?”
It seems that
Hollywood has given especially blacks more than a “fair
” in film. There are hundreds
of films
that feature blacks or that were made by blacks or that were
targeted at black viewers. But TV and big screen movies made by American
Indians? By Asians? By Hispanics? By the “disabled”?  By gays? By transgenders? By Pakistanis? By
Muslims? Not so many of those stories have been told. Have I overlooked any
“minorities”? The aged? The feminists? The autistic? The wheelchair-bound? The
obese? The blind? The mute? The deaf?
So, one must
ask oneself? Where have Spike Lee, Will Smith, Chris Rock, Barack Obama, and
Ethan Hawke been all these years? In what alternate universe have they been
living? What is their true complaint? Will Smith co-starred in two Men In Black films. What chip sits on
his shoulder?
One reader
wrote on Daniel Greenfield’s column of February 6th,
is Tipping Over’
” Congressman Demands Black Oscar Quotas:
Maybe they should change the hashtag to “#OscarsNotBlackEnough.”
And there’s
the nub. The Doberman barks or bares its teeth; Hollywood jumps through hoops.
Bridget Johnson in her PJ Media article of February 5th, “
Hope Academy Works with Congress to Make Oscars Less White
,” reported:
On Jan. 21, the Board of Governors of
the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences approved “sweeping”
changes to membership rules, such as extending voting terms in regards to how
long it’s been since a member actively worked in Hollywood, and promised to
recruit a more diverse voting membership.
“The Academy is going to lead and not wait
for the industry to catch up,” said Academy president Cheryl Boone Isaacs.
“These new measures regarding governance and voting will have an immediate
impact and begin the process of significantly changing our membership
put it simply and brutally: “
The entire #Oscarissowhite whine is racist,
entitled and stupid.”
The point man
for the whole #OscarsSoWhite boycott movement is Spike Lee. Breitbart’s
February 2nd column, “
Lee Calls Out ‘Progressive’ Hollywood: ‘Step up’ to Fight #OscarsSoWhite
,” reported:
a recent CNN interview with several “Hollywood heavyweights” about the
lack of diversity among this year’s Academy Awards nominees, film director
Spike Lee chided his “progressive” counterparts in the industry for not being
“active” in this “movement.”
“Hollywood has many times in
the past been active with progressive movements,” Lee said. “I would like to
see more people step up because we’re going to be on the right side of history….We’re
not going,” Lee said, referring to the calls to boycott this year’s Oscars ceremony. “Even with
the changes the made, which I think are great, we’re still going to be at the
Nicks game.”
What Spike Lee
and others of his malevolent, no-talent ilk want are: Quotas. They want their
10,000 copies and the guaranteed income and prestige that come with the print
run or with the box office.
And if a
novelist is fortunate (unlucky enough) to have his work selected by a Hollywood
studio for adaptation to film, will many of his characters be appropriated and
transformed into black characters? Suppose he does pen a novel with many black or
other “minority” characters, will the black casting be treated as “fair enough,”
or “not enough”? Will the writer have any say in what happens to his
characters? Not bloody likely.
There are many
other unaddressed complications. If a film comes out with the “right” quota of
white and black roles, should an Hispanic viewer care? Or if a film comes out
with the “right” amount of white and Hispanic characters, should a black viewer
care? An Asian? A Jew? A gay? A transgender? Will he feel “left out,” “under-represented,”
or “snubbed”? Which ethnic, religious, or racial “community” will cry
“discrimination”? And if the correct quota of Oscar winners is not of a
specific ethnic, religious, gender, or racial class, will a flurry of new
outraged, super-sensitive hashtags emerge on Twitter: #OscarsSoLatino? #OscarsTooHeterosexual?
 #OscaesSoWhite/Black/LatinaChick? #OscarsSoBlack?
failing to get those guaranteed 10,000 film roles, blacks and other minorities
who feel under-represented doubtless will accept direct or indirect government film
production subsidies, which go by the various names of “tax breaks,” “tax credits,”
and “movie production incentives.” There are many articles on the subject of state
. Three of the leading series now on Netflix, “House of Cards”
(shot largely in Baltimore), “Orange is the New Black” (shot largely in
Rockland County, New York), and “The Walking Dead” (it’s never left Georgia,
even though later seasons were set though not filmed in Alexandria, Virginia).
They benefit from special tax breaks and other state government-granted
advantages, such as the suspensions of state and local hotel/motel taxes, sales
taxes, and other government levies while a company is filming on location in a
state. Often segments of the series are shot free of charge on government property,
saving the producers the cost of constructing sets.

Dexter,” a crime
series (2006-2013), features one of the most “multi-racial,” “multi-ethnic,”
and multi-location TV series on Netflix, shot largely in Miami, Florida and
Long Beach, California.
Warning! There are few black characters in the Cyrus Skeen detective novel
series, and none in Silver
 This writer accepts no subsidies, and
certainly no “incentives” to produce. He knows that if he did, that would be
the end of his writing career.

“Islam is Just Christianity Misspelled”

Greenfield, writing in his Sultan Knish column on February 2nd, “Will
Banning Muslim Migration Ruin the Anti-ISIS Coalition?
” noted:
The Muslim world wants to
know what to expect from us. It hates Obama because of his unreliability. To
them, his political ideology resembles some species of mysticism which they do
not share. It much prefers an arrangement based on mutual interests over our
misguided mystical attempts to discover shared values by pretending that Islam is just Christianity misspelled.
(Italics mine.)
I couldn’t
resist using that last part – “Islam is just Christianity misspelled” – as the
thematic title for this column. But it is true. The phrase encapsulates the
common notion that Islam “shares” the same humanistic values as Christianity
and Judaism. The three faiths are alleged to be interchangeable, distinguished
only by their traditions and rituals, with no significant or worrisome doctrinal
differences. Christian and Jewish clerics who engage in “interfaith dialogue”
with Muslims act under the assumption that Islam is just another religion,
basically benign, not out to threaten or hurt anyone or force people to act
against their religious beliefs by converting “peacefully” to Islam.

But there is
no “peaceful” conversion to Islam. Islam tolerates no other religion. It is
fundamentally “anti-coexistence.” To paraphrase Henry Ford’s 1909 dictum, Islam’s
philosophy of coexistence is, “You can have any religion you want as long as
it’s Islam.”*
I discuss the
futility of “interfaith dialogue” in my January 2nd Rule of Reason  column, “Interfaith
Bridges to Islam
,” which is based on Stephen Coughlin’s vital critique of
our current and absolutely anemic and counter-productive “War on Terror”
policies, Catastrophic Failure:
Blindfolding America in the Face of Jihad
. Coughlin offers a brutal,
thorough, but necessary vivisection of the pretentions and fallacies of
interfaith dialogue. I noted that:
Postmodernism has allowed
Islam unopposed and unparalleled entrée into the minds and values of
Westerners. Coughlin discusses how this entrée works and the consequences of
Christian and Jewish religionists compromising their own beliefs by agreeing to
form a “united front” for peace and coexistence and multi-beliefs with Islam.
He correctly identifies the chief culprit and enabler of Muslim
Brotherhood-dominated interfaith dialogue as postmodernism. Postmodernism is
not incidental to the inroads being made by Islam in the West. It is a key
Without the assist of
postmodernism – which Islam did not create – neither the Brotherhood nor the
Organization of Islamic Cooperation (OIC) could exploit the self-criticism of
the West nor inveigle their way into the language and behavior of non-Muslim
interfaith participants. Islam would be stopped cold, told to return to the miserable
pestholes from which it came, and not admitted through the gates of
Aristotelian thought. The shiny shield of reason consistently applied to
everything and every idea could not be breached by the underhanded finagling
and deft finessing machinations of the Brotherhood and the OIC.
A West that doubts or
questions its own value qua West is destined for destruction, either by Islam
or by “its
own hands
.” Islam will provide the rope.
But our
political leaders, academia, and the news media all “blank out” the fundamental
nature of Islam – that it is totalitarian – and Islam’s primary and steadfast
goal: the imposition of Sharia law on the West and on America.
continued near the end of his column:
It’s not an
immigration ban that poses a threat to the coalition, it’s the insistence that
shared values come before shared interests. If we are to have shared values
with a Muslim coalition, that requires us to prosecute blasphemy against Islam,
provide a special status to Muslims and a lower status to non-Muslims. Such an
approach is incompatible with our own values, yet we have begun doing just
that. Locking up filmmakers and condemning cartoonists has given us more in
common with Saudi Arabia and ISIS. And it would be unfortunate if we had to
become an Islamic state to fight the Islamic State.

We can best fight ISIS by being a free nation. There is no use in defeating
ISIS just to become ISIS. That will not prevent us from joining coalitions of
shared interests with anyone else, but it will stop us from trying to find
shared values with Islamic tyrannies of the axe, burka and sword. A ban on
Muslim migration will allow us to fight ISIS abroad instead of fighting ISIS
and becoming ISIS at home.
Barack Obama indulged in his own brand of “interfaith dialogue” when he spoke
on February 2nd at a Baltimore mosque about “shared values.”
If you listen
to Obama claim – or if you read the transcript
of his Baltimore speech – with his signature, folksy, bilious bombast, that
Muslims contributed greatly to America’s history and growth, you would be left
with the impression that Muslims were all over the place, from colonial times
to the present, whooping it up with cowboys in North Dakota, “cranking out
cars” on Henry Ford’s assembly line, designing Chicago’s skyscrapers – and that
Muslims were Thomas Jefferson’s and John Adams’s best friends and regular house
guests. Obama insinuated in his speech that without Muslim contributions,
America would be so much the poorer. To his hand-picked and highly-screened
audience he said:
Generations of Muslim
Americans helped to build our nation. They were part of the flow of immigrants
who became farmers and merchants.  They built America’s first mosque,
surprisingly enough, in North Dakota.  (Laughter.)  America’s oldest
surviving mosque is in Iowa.  The first Islamic center in New York City
was built in the 1890s.  Muslim Americans worked on Henry Ford’s assembly
line, cranking out cars.  A Muslim American designed the skyscrapers of
There was one
claim in his speech that piqued my curiosity, that a Muslim designed many of
Chicago’s skyscrapers. So, I did a search, and found Fazlur Rahman
(3 April 1929 – 27 March 1982; naturalized American
citizen, 1967). Khan was from Bangladesh. It is highly doubtful that this
accomplished man had been a practicing Muslim. Reading his life story, you
can’t imagine him taking time out five times a day to perform the self-abnegating
Islamic prayer ritual. Further, he can’t have been a practicing Muslim when “
believed that engineers needed a broader perspective on life, saying, ‘The
technical man must not be lost in his own technology; he must be able to
appreciate life, and life is art, drama, music, and most importantly,
Islam frowns on, if not outright prohibits, art, drama, and music.
But Obama insinuates that Islam was somehow responsible for the man’s
achievements. Not the man himself. Obama suggested that Khan was accomplished
because he was a Muslim, not in spite of it. Assuming, that is, that Khan was
not an apostate or a lapsed Muslim.
In his speech lauding Muslims and Islam, Obama employed all the
flattering “puffery” devices invented by Mr. Puff in Richard Brinsley
Sheridan’s comedy, The Critic,
all intended  by Obama to inflate the
“self-esteem” of Muslims and the Muslim “community”: the
puff direct
, the puff preliminary, the puff collusive, the puff collateral,
and the puff oblique (or by implication). And also intended to put over a lie
and a fraud.**
Pamela Geller, in her February 3rd Atlas Shrugs column, “Radical
Speech: Muslims
Keep Us Safe
,” stressed the evasive deviousness of Obama in Baltimore:
In the wake of the
San Bernardino, Chattanooga, Paris and Garland jihad attacks, President Obama
visited a radical mosque in Baltimore today.
“An attack on one
religion is an attack on all religions,” Obama says as he visits a U.S. mosque
for the first time as president.
Pathetic. The
only religion attacking, subjugating and slaughtering members of other
religions en masse is Islam. The religion attacking other religions is Islam.
President Obama speaks nothing of this. Gender apartheid, creed apartheid,
cultural annihilation, jihad wars, and enslavement are raging across the world
under his presidency. And yet Obama proselytizes for Islam.
This is nothing new. Obama has been engaged in his own brand of dawah since his first day in office.  And Islam has been on the warpath for 1,400
Geller went on:, quoting Obama:
“For more than a
thousand years people have been drawn to Islam’s message of peace,” Obama says
of Islam. [Islam has been on the warpath for 1,400 years.]
He neglects to
mention that it is at the end of a sword. [Convert, or else.]
He gives Hollywood
his marching orders: “Our TV shows should have some Muslim characters that are
unrelated to national security,” “It’s not that hard to do.”
Obama’s stunning silence
on Christian genocide, Yazidi genocide, and Islamic Jew hatred is criminal and
“Muslim Americans
keep us safe,” Obama says as he visits
a U.S. mosque
for the first time as president. “They are our police. They
are our fire fighters. They’re in Homeland Security.”
No one takes issue
with law-abiding, peaceful Muslims. But there are millions of Muslims waging
jihad in the cause of Allah. What about them? And why is opposition to jihad
terror labeled “anti-Muslim”?
As for the Muslims
working at Homeland Security, how have they been vetted? By appointing Muslim
Brotherhood operative Mohamed Elibiary a senior member of DHS’ Homeland
Security Advisory Council (HSAC), then we have serious problems.
This is where I disagree with Geller. Islam is not an incubator of
individualism, it is not a fountainhead of independent thought, it is not a
promoter of independence from the crowd, from the mob, from the collective, from
the herd. It is a totalitarian cult that attracts selfless conformists because it
saves them the bother of egoism. It saves the intellectually lazy the effort of
thinking for themselves. “Law-abiding, peaceful Muslims” frankly constitute a
fifth column of the Muslim Brotherhood’s overall plan to Islamize America. They
are oblivious to or hostile to any Freedom of Speech or First Amendment issue. They
simply parrot whatever their spokesmen say in public. When Muslim spokesmen
speak of “Freedom of Speech” or “Freedom of Religion,” they are talking about a
Muslim’s freedoms, not those of non-Muslim.
In Baltimore, Obama touched on ISIS and other “radical” Islamic terrorist
Now, we do have
another fact that we have to acknowledge.  Even as the overwhelming
majority — and I repeat, the overwhelming majority — of the world’s Muslims
embrace Islam as a source of peace, it is undeniable that a small fraction of
Muslims propagate a perverted interpretation of Islam.  This is the
Groups like al Qaeda
and ISIL, they’re not the first extremists in history to misuse God’s
name.  We’ve seen it before, across faiths.  But right now, there is an
organized extremist element that draws selectively from Islamic texts, twists
them in an attempt to justify their killing and their terror.  They
combine it with false claims that America and the West are at war with
Islam.  And this warped thinking that has found adherents around the world
– including, as we saw, tragically, in Boston and Chattanooga and San
Bernardino – is real.  It’s there.  And it creates tensions and
pressure that disproportionately burden the overwhelming majority of
law-abiding Muslim citizens.  
And that overwhelming majority of “law-abiding Muslim citizens” is
largely silent about the mass crimes committed in their religion’s name. Islam has
not been “perverted,” nor has it been “hijacked.” The “violent”
verses that ISIS and other groups cite as justifications for terrorism
abrogated or replaced the earlier, “peaceful” ones. Terrorism, per Sharia and
scholarly interpretations of Islam, refers exclusively to Muslims killing other
Muslims. However, Muslims killing non-Muslims is condoned and encouraged in the
Koran and Hadith.
and Judaism, while as mystical as Islam, at least offer individuals a chance
to live independent lives and to make independent choices. Islam, which means submission;, does not. it does not mean “peace,”
or “peace be upon you,” as Obama claimed in his speech. (“And the very word
itself, Islam, comes from salam — peace.  The standard greeting is
as-salamu alaykum — peace be upon you” – if you’re a Muslim. If not, then no
peace for you.) Islam is totalitarian, root, branch, and trunk, as Judaism and
Christianity never were.
Islam is not
Christianity misspelled. Islam is Islam.  
:  Blindfolding America in the
Face of Jihad
by Stephen Coughlin. Washington, DC: Center for Security Policy Press, 2015. 788
My Life and Work (1922), Chapter IV, p. 72.


Sergeant Schultz Knows Everything

“I know nothing!”
That was
Sergeant Hans Schultz’s favorite and well-known refrain in Hogan’s Heroes, which
ran on CBS from 1965 to 1971. In the linked clip, he adds, “I was not here! I
did not even get up this morning!”
Suppose you
had a chance to chat with the real-life Sgt. Schultz’s in Germany, Sweden,
Norway, Denmark. The “interfaith” dialogue would go something like this, after
you’ve reported a crime committed by a Muslim.
Sgt. Schultz will
claim that he knows everything, he was there, and that you should go back to
sleep and pretend nothing ever happened. You were not raped by a Muslim or a
gang of Muslims. You did not have your head kicked in by a gang of Muslims. You
were not robbed by a Muslim. Or stabbed,
or groped, or spit on by a Muslim on a train or on the street. Or even raped
and then disfigured by a Muslim. Or by a “refugee,” or by an “immigrant.”
All right,
Sgt. Schultz would concede. All or one of those things happened to you. There’s
no denying the facts, is there? But if you fought back, and used illegal means such
as pepper
to deter your assailant, then you must be punished. Your fighting
back is evidence of bigotry, or racism, of being anti-Muslim or anti-Islam or
anti-immigrant. Of your lack of patriotism! Those states of mind are illegal,
as well, and must be corrected.
You must allow
yourself to be raped, robbed, and spit on. It’s your duty to submit to the diktats
of Islam. You must submit to Sharia. Horridly primitive system, yes. But, who
are we to judge? You may not survive the experience, but it’s an issue of
sacrifice. Of self-sacrifice for the greater good. For the nation. Sweden,
Denmark, Norway, Finland, Germany, even Italy – all of our lily-white
societies, have a duty to be invaded and assaulted by Muslims and others. We have
a duty to relieve the suffering they endured in the countries from which they
came. We have no right to assert that our morals and our society are superior
to the cultures of the immigrants. We have no right to impose them on
immigrants, even here. That is the height of cultural hubris and civilizational
imperialism. Okay, so the perpetrator was Somalian.
And he hates whites, even though Sweden was not a party to the downfall of
Somalia. Or Ethiopia. I’m a little foggy on the history of that part of the
world. So what?
Don’t you
understand that when a black- or brown- or olive-skinned male immigrant rapes a
Swede or a German, it’s what the Americans would call “payback” for the
destruction and looting of the immigrant’s home country? And even if the destruction
and looting are purely imaginary, and you or your ancestors had nothing to do
with it, you’re still guilty. The purpose is to humiliate and degrade the
victim, to demonstrate who’s in charge now. You may call it racism on his part;
but from his perspective, it’s reparations. Sure, it’s racism. But it’s
justifiable racism. Also, It’s a religious requirement to rape non-Muslim women,
and beat up non-Muslim men within an inch of their lives. I suspect that’s just
an excuse for a super-excited Muslim to get his jollies off, but don’t tell
anyone I said that.
You say you
have a right to know what’s going on in the country, about all the crimes
committed by Muslims and other immigrants?
Gott im Himmel!  How naïve of you! No,
you don’t have a right to know! Nobody not in government or the police forces
has a right to know! If people knew, there’d be a furious backlash at
immigrants, and Muslims, they might be attacked, and hurt, or even killed!
But you say they have a right to attack, hurt, and
even kill native Swedes, and Danes, and Germans, without much consequence, just
a slap on the wrist? But, that’s their culture, and we can’t punish them for
acting out their culture! That would be…discriminatory! And that’s unthinkable!
We don’t want to be charged with racism, or religious bigotry, or
anti-Muslimism! God, if we reported every one of the 5,000 or more crimes
committed by Muslims, we’d have to deport the whole lot of them! Or jail them. The
newspapers would run out of space to report them all! But, they’ve saved themselves
the trouble of being disciplined for reporting news we don’t want reported. They
don’t want to start a panic, either!

There’s a
fellow in America who ought to be silenced, Daniel
, he helped to spill the beans on our secret Code 291 policy, which
is to secretly compiled statistics on Muslim and immigrant crimes committed in
Sweden but not report them to the public. He wrote such slanderous things about
our law-enforcement efforts. He made much of that silly goose, Alexandra
Mezher, who got herself killed trying to break up a fight between “asylum
seekers children.” Poor girl, but that’s the risk you take when you do the
right thing and help adult
settle into our lovely country. I feel no remorse for her. Sooner or
later she was going to be sexually assaulted, but that’s neither here nor
there. So it’s good she’s dead. But this Greenfield fellow, he wrote – and don’t
you go broadcasting this to anyone else, not even to your parents, or else you
can be charged with hate speech and that carries a heavier penalty than using
illegal pepper spray, or Mace:
The people at the top wanted
an overview of the crisis, but they did not want the public to know what was
going on. That was what
Code 291 was for
Police would not disclose
details of the resources spent on work with refugees and migrants.  This
despite the fact that the agency kept separate statistics on this using the
secret code “291” .
This is not how democracies
work. This is not how free countries work. This is how totalitarian states
European governments are
deliberately hiding information about Muslim migrant crimes from the public. They
are covering up attacks, intimidating witnesses and even visiting the homes of
people who criticize this
on Twitter to intimidate them
This is what a totalitarian
system looks like. Code 291 should be a rallying call to bring down the iron
curtain of collectivist bureaucracy and expose the truth about its migrant
What libelous,
xenophobic rubbish! We are not totalitarian!
What a nasty slur! We are a caring regime. Sometimes we overdo it, but it’s all
for your own good. It’s all for the general good. You can’t create a model society
of diversity and multiculturalism without breaking a few traditions or taboos
or heads.
Are you saying
that the Swedish and German and Danish police have become allies of the criminals?? That suggestive libel has earned you
extra two years in clink! So what if the Cologne
police have erased
all visual record of the mass assault on women there on
New Year’s Eve? It’s for the public’s own good. That great prophetess Chancellor
Angela Merkel, is determined to make Germans and Germany pay for its past
crimes, even though most Germans alive today had nothing to do with Nazism,
they weren’t even born yet!
Still, it’s
the cultural and political heritage thing, you know, and their inherited “white
privilege” that must be paid for. And so what if no Somali or Iraqi or Turk or
Syrian never discovered a new law of physics or invented new medical procedure
(other than beheading!) or composed anything worth listening to. They come from
brutal societies with their own cultural heritage. We mustn’t be judgmental
now. Or else you spend a night in the box! Love that American phrase! But that
Greenfield writer is definitely not
to my taste! Our dear friend Mr. Mark Zuckerberg
ought to shut him up! Hate speech just causes problems. Hate is contagious, you
know, especially if the object of hate is, well…hateful. And you can hate all
of these immigrants, but also feel sorry for them.
Now, if you can’t
pay the 5,000 Euro fine, you’ll have to be cuffed and taken away. We have a new
recruit in uniform now. His name is Abdul Rahman Abunasir. He is from Syria…think.
He is eager to escort you to prison, and will see that you are comfortably
settled in your new cell. But, before you submit to his handcuffs, I advise you
to wear a headscarf to cover your hair and wear an ankle-length skirt.
Otherwise, he
might be provoked and get mad at you…or something.
I am not a
dumb person, young lady. There isn’t anything I don’t know. Sergeant Schultz at
your service! Deaf to your screams, blind to your suffering, and mute on policy!

Powered by WordPress & Theme by Anders Norén