»Home | »Philosophy  | »Advocacy | »Weblog
:: The Rule of Reason ::

:: Wednesday, February 10, 2016 ::

Huma Abedin: Wicked Witch of Islam 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 2:42 PM

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 material.

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 Sisterhood.  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 Failure: 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 Abedin 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 Brotherhood'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 Good, which the U.S. government has formally designated as an international terrorist organization led by the Muslim Brotherhood luminary Yusuf al-Qaradawi.

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 MuslimBrotherhoodinAmerica.com), the revelations contained in a new Center reportTies That Bind? The Views and Agenda of Huma Abedin’s Islamist Mothercould 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 “castle”]
  • Female Genital Mutilation is Allowed [to ensure that women experience no joy in sex]
  • 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 Women 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 Clinton 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 editor of its in-house publication, the Journal of Muslim Minority Affairs (JMMA). At least 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 profile 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 “vice chair” 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 concludes:

Huma Abedin's brother, Hassan Abedin, has ties to the Muslim Brotherhood and is currently an associate editor 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.

:: Permalink | 3 Comments ::


:: Saturday, February 06, 2016 ::

Affirmative Action in Film 

:: Posted by Edward Cline at 6:51 PM

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 recognition.

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 disabilities.

There is a minor character in Ayn Rand’s prophetic novel, Atlas Shrugged, 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 Eubank, a failed writer who nonetheless has political pull in Washington

Wikipedia has a special site for breaking down Atlas Shrugged by plot and character. Here is the section on Balph Eubank:

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.

Eubank 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.

Maura Pennington, in her Forbes article of August 3rd, 2013, “Atlas Shrugged’s Balph Eubank Long ago, Predicted the Impoverished Future for Writers,” wrote:

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.  

President 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 sitcoms 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, “Barack Obama on Oscars diversity: are we giving everyone a fair shot?” reported Obama’s nickel’s worth:

US president Barack Obama 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”.

Describing 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.

“I 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 shot” 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, "’Guam 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, “Lawmakers 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 composition.”

Greenfield 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, “Spike Lee Calls Out ‘Progressive’ Hollywood: ‘Step up’ to Fight #OscarsSoWhite,” reported:

During 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?

However, 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 subsidies. 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.

Trigger Warning! There are few black characters in the Cyrus Skeen detective novel series, and none in Silver Screens.  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.

:: Permalink | 2 Comments ::



» Recent Posts

» Huma Abedin: Wicked Witch of Islam
» Affirmative Action in Film
» “Islam is Just Christianity Misspelled”
» Sergeant Schultz Knows Everything
» A Preview of Manhattan Blues
» Words and Reality
» The Sexual Savaging of Europe
» Obama’s Malice Aforethought II
» Our Gutted and Gutless FBI: Fiction vs. Reality
» Twitter’s Blue Bird of Sharia Compliance

» RSS Feed

» Capitalist Book Club
Purchase the essential texts on capitalism.

» Feedback
We want to hear from you!


Blogs We Love:
» Alexander Marriot
» Armchair Intellectual
» Best of the Web Today
» Daily Dose of Reason
» Dithyramb
» Dollars & Crosses
» Ego
» Ellen Kenner
GMU Objectivists
» Gus Van Horn
» Harry Binswanger List
History At Our House
» How Appealing
» Illustrated Ideas
» Intel Dump
» Instapundit
» Liberty and Culture
» Michelle Malkin
Mike's Eyes
» NoodleFood
» Objectivism Online
» Outside the Beltway
» Overlawyered
» Powell History Recommends
» Quent Cordair's Studio
» Randex
» Sandstead.com
» Scrappleface
» Selfish Citizenship 
» Southwest Virginia Law Blog
» The Dougout
» The Objective Standard
» Truth, Justice and the American Way

» Link Policy
» Comments Policy



Copyright © 1998-2013 The Center for the Advancement of Capitalism. All Rights Reserved.
info-at-capitalismcenter.org · Feedback · Terms of Use · Comments Policy · Privacy Policy · Webmaster