Recently, actor Matt Damon narrated a video for the State Department, addressing the problem of chronic  worldwide hunger. The video is extremely well made; those who watch it can’t help but be touched by it.

This first minute of the three-minute video revolves around one problem: Hunger. Poor children are seen dying of starvation, others are lying on the streets of third-world countries, not able to walk. Damon explains that six million children die of hunger every year – needless to say, a shocking statistic.

Even the most egotistical viewer cannot help but get angry at and upset by so much suffering, most of which is needless.

But then, one minute into the video, the subject suddenly changes. We move from dying children to tornadoes and tsunamis. Damon forgets about the children for a while to focus on … you knew it was coming … global warming.

Dying, hungry, suffering children are used as tools to talk about leftists’ main obsession; the myth of man-made global warming. The opportunism of these people never ceases to amaze me. They truly know no shame.

Damon’s video likely has something to do with the upcoming climate change talk in Copenhagen, Denmark. The U.S. State Department is clearly stepping up its efforts to influence public opinion and to prepare it for a deal that would do tremendous, needless, damage to Western economies, all in a vain attempt to combat climate change.

That is sad. What’s even sadder, however, is that videos such as Damon’s can have a major impact in global policy. Although increasingly more Europeans are becoming skeptical of man-made global warming leading to catastrophe, they still form the minority – and a pretty small one at that. Videos such as the one produced by the U.S. State Department and narrated by the world famous actor Matt Damon will undoubtedly cause many Europeans to support whatever treaty comes out of Copenhagen.

Although Americans may be more critical about global warming than we Europeans, it’s hard to imagine they will be left untouched by the video. The average voter is likely to think, “but if we don’t do something, millions of innocent little children will die!” Who can argue against that?

Interestingly enough, the last thirty seconds of the video are dedicated to different subjects. Suddenly Damon switches to “opening strong markets” to African products (since when do leftists love globalization and the free market, you have to wonder?) and to “empowering women.” What that has to do with global warming, no one knows, but that is not the point. No, the real subject of this video is global warming and the goal is to prepare Americans for an overly expensive treaty, which will do nothing whatsoever to actually change the climate for the better.

Using imagery of dying children, hunger, and oppressed women to butter-up Americans (and Europeans) to embrace an unnecessary, expensive and probably counterproductive Copenhagen-treaty… for Hollywood, it’s business as usual.

If you didn’t know any better, you would almost think that Sean Penn wants to make it extremely easy for conservatives to criticize Hollywood for being overly liberal. He’s flown to Cuba to interview his hero Fidel Castro:

Oscar-winning actor and political activist Sean Penn flew to Cuba hoping to interview its revolutionary icon Fidel Castro, entertainment news website TMZ reported Sunday.

“Sean (Penn) is going to the land of Fidel as a journalist, writing a story for Vanity Fair (magazine) about how the (Barack) Obama administration has affected Cuba,” TMZ reported…

“Barclays sources say Sean and Diana are going to meet (Fidel) Castro — presumably because that’s what Diana told them,” the website reported. Penn’s representative also told TMZ a meeting was possible.

Vanity Fair sent Penn shortly after Spanish newspaper El Pais reported that President Obama asked Spain’s Prime Minister Jose Luis Rodriguez Zapatero, to talk to Cuba. “Tell Raul that if he does not take steps, neither can I,” Obama told the PM. “We are making efforts, but if they do not make efforts, it will be very difficult for us to continue.”

Is Penn truly acting on VF’s behalf, or will he go to Cuba because the Obama administration wants him to convince Fidel and Raul Castro to reach out to the U.S.?

It never ceases to amaze me that Hollywood-stars sympathize so much with ruthless dictators like Castro. You would think they understand that associating with mass murderers is harmful to their reputations. But no, they have been inside Hollywood’s leftist bubble for so long, they do not even realize the impact these kinds of adventures have on their image, both in the U.S. and abroad.

Next time Penn feels the need to interview a head of state, perhaps he could travel to Poland to talk to President Vaclav Klaus. Unlike Castro, Klaus is pro-America, pro-free markets, pro-freedom and anti-global warming; such an interview would at least be surprising.

As BH’s editor-in-chief John Nolte explained:

…tens, if not hundreds of millions of Americans, will be urged through the (ab)use of public airwaves to log on to the EIF iParticipate site and volunteer” this week.

A memo published by Big Hollywood, Big Government and others, clearly shows the propaganda week was orchestrated by the White House and ‘fits into a broader White House plan, including the push to politicize the NEA, to redefine “art” as “service” and engage an all too compliant news, entertainment, and artistic community to start a volunteer army through these online portals.’

Although the EIF-scandal has been covered in depth here, on other blogs and by Fox, a question that has not been asked is how Europe will react to Obama’s massive liberal agenda? How will Europeans react to an obvious attempt to politicize art and the media? Will Europe react?

The last question has to be answered first, of course, and the answer is pretty simple: yes it will. If for nothing else, then because Obama continues to be adored by most of the European MSM. Everything he does is celebrated by our establishment journalists, who, like their American counterparts, pride themselves in being ‘tolerant,’ ‘compassionate’ and ‘reasonable.’ Keywords, of course, for leftists.

Which brings me to the second reason they are sure to cover this: This is a perfect leftist agenda. European Social Democrats have dreamed of doing what Obama does, for decades. It is, if you’ll excuse the language, every progressive’s wet dream. Of course, most European media and artists have a leftist agenda, but down here they have to hide it somewhat. They cannot speak about their biases and their long term goals. Their American ideological allies have no fear, however. They plan and plot all they want, and virtually nobody is doing anything about it. What is there not to love for the average liberal European?

Well, there is this thing about anti-Americanism. Europeans have complained about American hegemony, influence and dominance for decades. Especially under George W. Bush – but also before – European media tried to put the U.S. in as bad a light as possible. America was too powerful, too strong and its ‘culture of corruption and greed’ too pervasive. No matter where you turned, there was American influence.

Obama’s plans are unlikely to decrease American influence worldwide – they will only change its nature.  Where it was always pro-freedom and pr0-capitalism, its aim will now be to redistribute wealth and to transform the world into one happy multicultural community in which equality of outcome, not of opportunity, is considered the ultimate goal. Europe will be confronted with this new vision for the world constantly. We will not be able to escape this new ‘cultural imperialism.’

It is doubtful, however, that all traditional critics of American hegemony in the past, will condemn this new agenda as they did with the old agenda. To a lot of Europeans, the problem with American dominance was never this dominance in itself, but its nature. It was too capitalist, too ‘immoral,’ too American.

The new approach, on the other hand, will be completely different. It will be Social Democratic and therefore distinctly European. Sure, it will be America that tries to ’socialize’ the world, but who cares; the end result will be the same. These international leftists’ – a majority of whom are part of the MSM – problem with American hegemony and ‘pushiness’ was that it was not liberal. Once it is, they will forget all their old criticism, and they will herald Obama as the great liberal Messiah.

On the other hand, there will also be European leftists who will be angered by more proof of ‘America’s arrogance.’ Lest we forget, Socialism and its little brother Social Democracy is a European, not an American invention. These Europeans will be angered by what they perceive to be America stealing their number one issue. They will be more than pleased that the U.S. has finally joined the ranks of what they consider to be the civilized world, but it should realize who’s boss: Europe. America has to follow Europe’s lead, not the other way around; why, oh why can’t Obama understand that?

Of course, there will also be European conservatives – and yes, there are many of us – who will criticize the cultural imperialism Obama envisions. These Europeans have been indoctrinated by the European media, however. They believe that the Democratic Party is the equivalent of most conservatives parties in Europe. This is clearly not correct – many Democrats and especially Obama and his allies are further left than Labor in Europe – but it takes time for Eurocons to wake up. Luckily they have started doing just that, with Brits taking the lead. As usual, we can expect mainland Europe to follow in the Brits’ footsteps within a few months time. Because there is a tremendous lack of relationships between European conservatives and American conservatives, this process takes some time. But come, it will.

It will be fascinating to watch Europe’s reaction to Obama’s extremely ambitious plans to ‘radically transform’ America and the world. The Old Continent’s leftists will be divided over the matter, while its conservatives will find themselves repeating some of the criticism their ideological enemies – Social Democrats – made before Obama came to power.

It’s a good thing there are conservatives willing to expose this administration for what it is.

President Obama and Kalpen Modi, Associate Director of the Office of Public Engagement

But the question is, what’s next? How can this be countered and how can the Obama administration be forced to back down? As it is, liberal groups, news organizations and individuals continue to cover up for the administration. Perhaps someone will be thrown under the bus again, but the thugs of Team Obama will remain in place and continue to “transform America.”

Exposing their tactics is necessary to fight them, but it’s not enough to actually beat them. Mr. Breitbart and team have learned that the tactics the left has used against conservatives for decades; to discredit them works wonders. But if conservatives want to take back the government, we have to copy the left’s organizing skills as well.

It’s an outrage that the NEA has been turned into a propaganda tool by the most liberal president the U.S. has ever had. But there is a reason the administration spoke to artists on the August conference call and was willing to take the risk of exposure: artists influence the people. The effect isn’t always immediate–it may take years for artists to truly influence society as a whole–but it’s there. If you want to “transform” society you need artists on your side.

Liberals have always understood this. They’ve been working with artists for decades. A lot of art already is politicized. The only reason this is a scandal now is because the radical left isn’t some fringe group at this moment but is in charge of the government. As Buffy Wicks put it, “we [meaning they] won.”

If they weren’t in charge of the government but were still activists, some would still be outraged, but it would not be considered a big thing. The strategy is nothing new–the only new aspect of it is that these people have taken over the government and continue to use artists as propaganda tools.

Whether we like it or not, this strategy has paid off. Liberals have influenced society tremendously by, among other things, using the arts to indoctrinate the American people. They’ve done this in the United States and in Europe. They’re influencing society by doing what free market thinker Friedrich Hayek told conservatives to do: getting second-hand dealers of ideas on their side who then slowly but surely influence society by a constant and never-ceasing flow of propaganda.

If we conservatives want to fight back in the long run, instead of just bringing down this particular liberal administration, we have to do what liberals have been doing for years. We too have to get as many second hand dealers of ideas on our side. Then and only then will be successful in the long run.

Breitbart has taught us that the strategies the left has used to discredit the right can be used against them. We have to act on that, continue to do what Breitbart and some here at Big Hollywood have been doing. But we have to do more than that: we have to destroy and create. And the wonderful thing is that to do this we can learn from the left once again, we can use their tactics against them in this aspect as well.

If we want the victories of the last weeks to be permanent, we should copy the left’s strategy in every way possible. Destroy and create.

Let’s get going.

The speech was awesome, if not brilliant and it deserves more curculation than it has thus far received. Andrew said some very important things during the speech; conservatives in the United States and Europe should pay heed.

“I really think that the only way that the conservative movement… people that want limited government, the only way we’re ever going to be able to sell the idea is if we learn that the media is the message,” said Breitbart to an audience of new media personnel of not-for-profit organizations, conservative bloggers, and radio staff.

“We have like a ten to twenty year battle on our hands,” the co-founder of Big Hollywood, the group blog that features contributions from high profile Hollywood conservatives, said he tells GOP Congressmen in Washington, encouraging them to “stop acting like your great, great grandfather, and not be afraid of pop culture.”

You can watch the entire speech below:

–

–

–

If this photo is authentic, it serves as a perfect example of what the hip-hop mentality can do to women. Chris Brown may not be a hip-hop artist, but he’s certainly part of its culture and attitude. This culture is anti-women, and basically anti-civilization.

Rihanna should use this opportunity to educate and influence youngsters in a positive manner. For years, she and her ilk have taught youngsters that dressing like a prostitute and behaving like one is ideal behavior for a girl. Boys, of course, should behave like pimps.

Let’s hope Rihanna does teach girls (and boys) self-respect and humility, and takes on the hip-hop culture’s destruction.

Not only do hip-hop artists promote sexually perverse behavior, disrespect towards women and violence, they seem to believe that living in accordance to these ‘values’ is quite all right:

Just a day after an interview with Chris Brown’s father appeared on People.com, the magazine has published an interview with Rihanna’s father, Ronald Fenty.

Fenty reportedly told the magazine that when he first heard about her alleged altercation with Chris Brown, “I didn’t believe it. I know my daughter,” he said, adding about Brown, “You think you know somebody, but you really don’t.”

The alleged incident took place before the Grammy Awards last Sunday. Brown was arrested and released on bail; Rihanna is reportedly cooperating with police…

On Friday, the magazine published an interview with Brown’s biological father, Clinton Brown.

“He’s reflecting on this situation,” Brown said of his son. “He’s very remorseful. He’s very concerned about the situation and he wants to make sure that [Rihanna's] OK. This is unfortunate, this stumble, this situation,” Brown added. “Hopefully, he will get past it. We all have our shortcomings. We all trip.”

Notice how MTV doesn’t bother quoting anyone outraged at Brown for beating up his girlfriend. The strongest condemnation they could find is, “You think you know somebody, but you really don’t.” And let’s not even talk about Brown’s father who considers beating up a woman ”a shortcoming,” and explains it all away with, “We all trip.”

Brown’s attack on Rihanna and the public reaction to it (of some, at least) is a typical sign of the times. Hip-hop and other popular music artists often promote an anti-women worldview in which violence is seen as legitimate behavior. Where Western men were once taught that beating a woman is at all times unacceptable, teenagers today are told that women can deserve it and that a real man slaps his woman when she disobeys him.

Meanwhile, this is a grand opportunity for Rihanna to use her popularity and fame for a good purpose, rather than to give young girls the impression they have to be thinner than a carrot and dress like a prostitute. Lets hope she’ll use this controversy as a means to educate youngsters who, for better or worse, look to her for guidance.

Firstly, real people act in it, which is, as I explained in my post on “Kung Fu Panda,” a definite pro for me. Secondly, “Traitor” deals with an incredibly hotly debated subject; the war on terrorism. Thirdly, the main character is a Muslim American who helps fight extremist Muslims; it is a subject seldom explored in books or movies. It is a grand, novel and innovative idea, especially from my perspective.

And it was. The actors perform sublime. They draw you into the movie immediately and convince you that they are the characters rather than pretending to be them. The special effects are great and the movie was exciting; it keeps you off-balance. It is not until the very last moment that you understand the plan and the way in which it was executed.

But there is more to the movie than the superficial aspects described above. What made this movie so interesting – and from my perspective resulting in a mixed review nonetheless – are its major themes.

*Some Spoilers Coming*

Let’s start with the good stuff: The main character, Samir Horn (Don Cheadle), is depicted as a Muslim who worked for the FBI but fired after his colleagues complained about his devotion to his religion. He is “the reluctant fundamentalist” but more violent. Although that theme can hardly be called innovative, everything changes after those first 30 minutes. At that moment it becomes clear that the firing was a cover-up. Instead of being fired he became an undercover agent who had to infiltrate terrorist networks and prevent them from executing their plans.

The above was quite surprising because his project is depicted as just and as the act of a religious Muslim who, we find out later, considers extremists his secular and religious enemy, an opinion many Muslims, including myself, share. It has, however, seldom been made clear in movies or books.

That his fight is portrayed as ‘just’ is also surprising because Hollywood often produces rubbish about the war on terrorism portraying the good guys as the bad guys and vice versa. “Traitor” shows reality as it is and how it should be: a devout Muslim opposing extremism and even fighting it, and Americans as those who are protecting freedom against the enemy who wants to destroy all we hold dear.

There are certainly some minor points of criticism with regards to the first part of the film: for instance, at the very start of the movie, one sees the father of Samir teaching his son how to perform the ritual prayer. Ironically enough, the ‘devout Muslim’ performs the ritual prayer incorrectly. Instead of saying “as salaamu aleikum wa rahmatulaa” twice at the end he says “Allahu Akbar.” This is a frustrating mistake to make for a Muslim because both sentences have entirely different meanings. “Allah Akbar” means “God is Great” while “as salaamu aleikum wa rahmatulaa” means “may the peace and blessings of God be with you.” If the main character of a film is a devout Muslim, at least teach the actor how to perform our ritual prayer correctly.

The American government too is generally shown in a favorable light. An example: Samir’s superior cares deeply about him and does everything in his power to protect the undercover agent. Additionally, one of the two FBI agents, impressively enough the one who also happens to be a devout Christian , tries to understand terrorists and is open to a different interpretation than the most obvious one with regards to Samir’s actions. Agent Roy Clayton (Guy Pearce) is passionate about fighting terrorism, but he does not use  “all means necessary.”

Clayton’s partner is an entirely different agent, the embodiment of George W. Bush and Dick Cheney’s approach to the war on terror Hollywood-style. This man is not open to reasonable arguments, all he wants to do is to capture or kill terrorists. If torture has to be applied, so be it. If innocent civilians have to die, who cares as long as they are Muslim?

Luckily, the partner plays only a minor role in the film, so the viewer is not really bothered by him.

As said, there is certainly room for criticism of “Traitor” but its main themes are refreshing, inspiring and of fundamental importance: the war on terrorism is a war between good and bad, between freedom and oppression.

Especially the message that you can be a devout Muslim yet a good American nonetheless, is inspiring. It has not been said often enough in the last couple of years that one can be both at the same time. Many pretend that in order to be a good American a Muslim has to ignore a large part of his religion. “Traitor” shows that this is not the case; you can be a devout Muslim, yet a supporter of America, of freedom, and of democracy nonetheless.

Unfortunately, the above changes radically in the last few minutes when Liberal Hollywood could not resist to once again portray the good side in the war on terrorism as the bad side.

Where Samir Horn is portrayed as a religious and devout Muslim fighting the good fight in the first 90 minutes of the movie, he ends up with absolutely nothing in the end. He tortures himself by reciting a famous verse in the Qur’an in which God says about those kill one innocent: “It would be as if he killed the whole of mankind” (5:32). Samir makes clear to agent Clayton that it may finally have been clear to all involved that he was acting in America’s interest, but he has lost his confidence in himself and in his moral authority. In short, the devout Muslim fighting extremists ends up a broken man.

If there’s one thing we (liberal Muslims) do not need right now, it is for others to tell us that our fight is not worth fighting. We need encouragement , not discouragement. We are fighting the good fight and standing up for what we believe in. We are doing everything in our power to prevent the hatred disguising itself as religion from taking over our communities, our mosques, our families, our cities and our countries. We know, and we need to know, that it is the extremists who are the villains and that is us who are the good guys.

Samir is a hero in every sense of the word; he is a secular American hero and a true Muslim hero; we need more of those. The film should have had a happy end for that would have sent a positive and inspiring message, instead of giving everyone the impression that the war on terrorism is not truly worth fighting.

Worse, according to “Traitor” we are no better than Osama Bin Laden, Ayman al-Zawahiri and other extremists if we decide to take them on. If someone would say this to your face, you would laugh at him. But for some reason, Hollywood considers it perfectly OK to put this idiotic message in one of its top productions. It defies reason.

Samir made mistakes in the movie, but this does not make him a bad guy. Even good guys make mistakes in the real world. We should learn from those mistakes but they should not cause us to lose our confidence in ourselves and our goals. The mistakes made by proponents in the war on terrorism – say Guantanamo Bay and Abu Ghraib – were grave, but what differs us from the real bad guys is that these acts are mistakes for us while they are normal for the enemy. The enemy does not beat itself up after seeing evidence of a prisoner being tortured; it happily publishes videos of the (innocent) person being tortured and eventually murdered on the Net. The enemy is proud of it. We are not – and that’s what makes us different.

Perhaps some big shot in Hollywood will read this pos, and do something with it. I know it’s easy for these people to dismiss everything conservatives say, but I’m also a Muslim which should make it harder to ignore me considering liberals’ adoration for minorities. If Hollywood wants to make a positive difference in this world, it should use “Traitor’s” themes for a good cause: to encourage rather than discourage, and to build rather than destroy.

Here’s the basic story (for a longer summary, I suggest you go to WikiPedia ); a panda going by the name of Po wants to become a Kung Fu fighter but he’s ill-equipped to take on anything stronger and fiercer than bamboo. Not only is he a panda, he is also a panda who loves to eat cookies and, well, everything else. Despite his physique, Po becomes the hero of the story by beating tiger warrior Tai Lung.

It’s an incredibly funny movie – especially the scene in which Po is finally able to do the split after his teacher tells him that another fighter hides his cookies in a cupboard which is located at quite an inconvenient spot, high up at the ceiling, pushed between two walls – had me going for 15 minutes.

But what makes this movie even greater is that there’s much more to it than humor. Its message is truly American.

Sure, Po is in theory the anti-hero who can’t get anything done. True enough. But he turns out to be a real hero who, by pure dedication, succeeds in turning his weakness into his strength. Po does not merely overcome his arch-enemy Tai Lung, he overcomes the fiercest enemy of all: himself.

“Kung Fu Panda” is entertaining, a joy to watch for adults and children alike, but it’s also a movie that makes a fundamentally sound and conservative (and American! ) principle: If you work hard, you can become anything you want. You may face obstacles along the way - No, you will face obstacles – but the only one able to stop is you .

As if that’s not conservative and American enough, “Kung Fu Panda” also breaks with the average modern movie by allowing an ugly and fat panda to become the hero of the story. Po’s change takes place on the inside not the outside; he was and remains a chubby panda. This is not a film where the ugly girl becomes the beauty queen or the nerd blossoms — in this respect KFP is a nice break from our look-obsessive society.

Concluding, this animation movie perfectly combines humor with a message conservatives can believe in; no matter who you are, no matter who your parents are (Po’s father is a goose who owns a noodle soup shop), you can become everything you want, as long as you work hard and refuse to give up.

Although this statement may make perfect sense to Hanks, the reality of the matter is that amending a constitution is perfectly American. What’s un-American is legislating from the bench – liberal judges forcing their personal views on the rest of us, as those did who overruled a law banning gay marriage also supported by a majority of Californians.

It is “un-American” to refuse to debate an issue and, instead, to vilify and demonize the other side. Furthermore, it is also distinctly “un-American” for Hanks to call those who dare disagree “un-American.” Lastly, it is even more “un-American” to single out a specific group solely because of their religious views.

Why isn’t Hanks calling African Americans, who voted in large numbers for Prop. 8, “un-American?” Why isn’t Hanks taking aim at Hispanics who also voted against legalizing gay marriage? Is it, perhaps, because liberals like Mr. Hanks only dare attack easy victims like white men, white Christians and white Mormons?