In the flick, the director enlists every CGI trick in the book to destroy various religious icons– including the Sistine Chapel, St. Peter’s Basilica and the Christ the Redeemer statue. And for those of you who worship at the altar of Obama, the White House gets nailed as well.

But there was one thing missing among the carnage: an Islamic target.

Emmerich at his London home.

According to Sci Fi Wire, by way of Cinematical.com, this was no accident. In an interview, the director said he hoped to destroy the Kaaba, an Islamic holy site, but his fellow screenwriter Harald Kloser persuaded him not to.

Here’s what the hack had to say about crushing the Kaaba:

“Well, I wanted to do that… but my co-writer Harald said I will not have a fatwa on my head because of a movie. And he was right. … We have to all … in the Western world … think about this. You can actually … let … Christian symbols fall apart, but if you would do this with [an] Arab symbol, you would have … a fatwa, and that sounds a little bit like what the state of this world is. So it’s just something which I kind of didn’t [think] was [an] important element anyway in the film, so I kind of left it out.”

And so, he echoes what I said nearly two years ago on this show: Hollywood screws with Christians because Christians don’t behead people. But tweak Islam, and you could end up like director Theo van Gogh – dead on a street with a flag impaled on your chest. Roland picks the safe target because he’d rather live, and by “live,” I mean “beat our brains to death with yet more effects-laden dreck.” As my guinea pig, Captain Whiskers might say, “All hail the dependable cowardice of our film industry!”

He might say that, if he could talk.

Anyway, the difference between good and evil is pretty clear. Good people might annoy you about having prayer in schools; evil people throw acid in girls’ faces if they wish to go to school. Trashing the former, while ignoring the latter – proves that Roland has the gonads of a shrimp.

(Note: I haven’t actually seen gonads on a shrimp, but I imagine they’re really small.)

And if you disagree with me, then you’re probably a racist.

Tonight we have Annabelle Gurewitch, Dr. Drew Pinsky, Andrew Breitbart, and Damian Abraham of F*cked Up.

Later!

I know this to be true. Being a news junkie myself, I have found time after time as I was reading about a supposedly breaking subject, like ABC’s recent coverage of the targeted LGBT murders in Iraq, that it had already been on display for all to see in Big Hollywood posts for months.

Not to toot my own horn, but…well, okay, I’m tooting my own horn. And those of Andy Breitbart and John Nolte, who have given I, and so many other wonderful and insightful Hollywood right-wing fringe types, a magnificent bullhorn we otherwise would not have. We appear to be doing the dirty jobs our media just refuses to do. It’s a labor Hercules would completely sympathize with.

Here are some prime examples.

THE OBAMAMEDIA: The British press, the UK Telegraph in particular, are VERY unhappy with White House spokesman Robert Gibbs today. Seems Mr. Gibbs offended them beyond belief with this statement, in response to the British tabloids hammering the Obama Administration over the suppression of torture photos, a la the reviled BusHitler:

“Let’s just say if I wanted to look up, if I wanted to read a write-up of how Manchester United fared last night in the Champions League Cup, I’d might open up a British newspaper,” (Gibbs) continued. “If I was looking for something that bordered on truthful news, I’m not entirely sure it’d be the first pack of clips I’d pick up.”

The UK Telegraph found the irony of that statement delicious:

Can you imagine Gibbs making these remarks about The New York Times or The Washington Post, or NBC, ABC or CBS? This would never happen. The British press, especially the Telegraph, has been singled out because they frequently publish articles critical of the Obama administration and are not afraid to take on the status quo in Washington.

Increasingly, millions of Americans are turning to online UK news websites for cutting edge reports on American politics and U.S. foreign policy that the mainstream media refuses to cover in the States, especially if it is unflattering to the Obama White House.

Mates, you’re not telling Big Hollywood anything new. We reported that our Fourth Estate was now a Fourth Branch of Government a month ago. Of course, these UK complaints of Obamamedia malfeasance would hardly have been necessary were President Obama a Republican, which we here at BH also hypothesized in Alice In Wonderland fashion. Fact is, if Obama were a Michael Steele-like Republican POTUS, the US press would be all over him like white on rice. Can I say that?

Who’d a-thunk we and the British tabloids would ever be banding together and staging a revolt against the American government and its PRAVDA-like propaganda wing, the VSM? Strange days, indeed. I also find it incredibly ironic that, as President Obama goes out of his way to appease the Hilterite Islamist extremist regime in Iran, his administration lackeys, through pure idiocy, are marching us down the path to yet another war with the British. Not only that, just how bad is it when the British revolt against OUR tax policies? Sorry, but I’m with the Redcoats this time around.

OBAMA AND THE LEFT: On May 26th, US News and World Report opined on the dissatisfaction of the liberal wing of the Democratic Party with Obama’s Bush Lite policies. On May 24th, Gary LaMarche tried to quell the Leftie uprising against Obama with this HuffPo piece. However, if you read the comments, many Lefties aren’t biting. Sorry, Gary, the Kumbaya routine doesn’t work with tinfoils. Same at KOS, which is telling their readers to quit with the ‘Obama is a War Criminal’ crap.

Again, Big Hollywood beat all to the punch on May 23rd. We knew how much of a disappointment Obama was to the Left. It is, in fact, a complete train wreck of liberal politics, naive idealism and harsh realities. And we’re lovin’ it! Again, Big Hollywood is ahead of the curve.

OBAMA AND GAY RIGHTS: On May 23rd, the New York Times published Frank Rich’s OpEd ‘La Cage au Democrats’ in which he commiserated with gay rights advocates of how little support LGBTs were getting from the Obama White House. He closed it out with this stinging rebuke:

The gay civil rights movement has fewer obstacles in its path than did Dr. King’s Herculean mission to overthrow the singular legacy of slavery. That makes it all the more shameful that it has fewer courageous allies in Washington than King did. If “American Idol” can sing out for change on Fox in prime time, it ill becomes Obama, of all presidents, to remain mute in the White House.

Ouch! Dead Bullseye, Frank! Sorry to tell you, Mr. Rich, but you’re only splitting Big Hollywood’s arrow. BH contributor Charlie Winecoff covered this issue in-depth at Big Hollywood way back on March 19th in his ‘Love, War and Gay Marriage’ OpEd. He saw what was coming based on Obama’s own statements, positions and even associations with gay-haters like Farrakhan. On May 8th, we illustrated how even Ronald Reagan was a better friend to gays than Obama probably ever will be.

Double Ouch! Sorry, Frank. You guys at the Times have to keep pace better than that, or you just might find yourselves relegated to dinosaur status. Wait a minute…Oh, never mind.

LGBT MURDERS IN IRAQ: Yet another issue that is beginning to inflame American gay advocates, who are fast becoming infuriated at the brutal and systematic extermination of LGBTs in Iraq on our dime, sanctioned by both Supreme Leader Ali al-Sistani in his fatwa of death against Iraqi LGBTs and by the Iraqi government itself. Not only are LGBTs being slated for execution by al-Maliki’s government, the Interior Ministry police are raiding gay parties, hunting gays online, and either arresting them or killing them on the spot. Shiite gay death squads are now common in Baghdad.

News outlets such as ABC are finally beginning to cover this issue in-depth. Gay rights advocate Michael Petrelis of the Petrelis Files blog has long been on point on this issue, holding demonstrations and raising money for Iraqi gays. Though encouraged by the media attention this horrific plight of gays in Iraq is finally getting, he could not be more outraged by the willful ignorance of this issue by the White House, the State Department and his Congressional representative, none other than House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Though Mr. Petrelis was not entirely enamored of my Reagan/Obama piece on gay rights here at Big Hollywood (he called me a right wing blowhard on his blog), he does credit BH for addressing the issue as he wished so many others in the gay community and politics would, and praises our calling it for what it is: a gay holocaust. What else do you call a targeted extermination program?

That said, the Reagan piece was not the first BH OpEd to address the burgeoning problem of targeted gay murders in Iraq. That was highlighted in my very first piece for Big Hollywood, entitled ‘One Critic’s Review of Mr. Ganis Goes to Tehran’ way back on March 9th. It was, in fact, Team Oscar’s trip to gay-butchering Iran at that time, not five days after the gay-infomercial Oscars, that sent me into fireball mode and led me directly to BH in the first place.

Not only did that piece describe the longstanding gay holocaust in Iran, a de facto genocide of Iranian LGBTs, it exposed for all the world to see what a human rights sham AMPAS and so-called Hollywood gay rights champs like Sean Penn and Dustin Lance Black really are. Team Oscar member Annette Bening went so far as to praise women’s rights in Iran (an oxymoron if ever there was one), even as fellow American Roxana Saberi was being held hostage as a political pawn right across town in Evin prison. Need more be said?

Again, Big Hollywood was way ahead of the curve.

Speaking of which, the targeted killings of Iraqi LGBTs poses a very curious question. If Prop 8 opponents are so infuriated and outraged at the perceived abysmal gay rights situation in California, as these Tweeting celebrities at afterellen.com seem to be, and in which model/actress Adrianne Curry sarcastically retorted, “treating gays like they aren’t human is wonderful!” then where is the outrage over the hunting, torturing and extermination of gays in Iran and Iraq?

Where is the fury over gay men in Iraq having their anuses glued shut, and being forced to drink diarrhea cocktails that induce horrible suffering before death? Sounds like way less than human treatment to me, Adrianne. Where, oh where, is the outrage?

Just goes to show. Hollywood celebrities may not be gays rights advocates, but they play them on TV. And where else, but for a few lone gay blogs like the Petrelis Files, will you find this pressing issue covered in as much depth as here at Big Hollywood? Hmm. Curious.

TEAM OSCAR IN IRAN: Who else was covering Team Oscar in Iran like Big Hollywood? No one in the entertainment industry I could find. A few outraged conservatives, that’s about it. And it looked like AMPAS shut down all PR coverage of Team Oscar after the punking episode (a story lead I broke to Drudge and Nikki Finke, hee hee!), I had to get all my scoops from the Tehran Times and the Middle East press! This, for the most historic mission in Academy history! How sad is that?

Do any of you remember their grand Red Carpet heroes’ welcome at LAX? Me neither. Hell, they were so quiet about the trip, I though the Iranians were holding them hostage! I thought maybe they had taken me up on my offer to trade the Nine Stooges for Roxana Saberi. No such luck.

And show me anyone else in the media or entertainment rags who was pointing out that Iran’s film industry, which Academy prez Sid Ganis is still praising, spits out the worst anti-Semitic propaganda since Goebbels’ Reichministry. They’re marketing and exporting child martrdom cartoons like Hollywood does SpongeBob! Doing a bang-up business too, if you’ll pardon the pun.

THAT’S A WRAP! As a contributor I will do my best, as many other fine folks here at BH are doing, to keep you all up to date on the goings-on in Hollywood and elsewhere,  that you just won’t see covered in all too many other so-called media outlets. Considering how many pressing subjects the Obamamedia is dodging to keep Dear Leader spotlessly clean, that won’t be hard to do. The real problem will be deciding on which subjects the media isn’t covering to choose from.

As a BH fan and reader, I look very much forward to reading more of the great Greg G. spilling his guts, Charlie Winecoff’s unique perspectives on the issues of our day, John Nolte’s insightful and unbiased reviews of Hollywood films and TV shows past, present and future (as well as his calling the biased reviewers out for their politically-motivated hit pieces), interviews with outstanding Hollywood filmmakers you just won’t see in HR and Variety, and many other great contributors like Robert Davi, Bert Prelutsky, Andy Breitbart too numerous to mention here.

You want the real Hollywood scoop? You know where to come! Peace, all. I hope

First, the one of the main points of this fact-based opinion piece. And I know I’m going to catch hell from the Streisand and Brolin crowd on this one! Ronald Reagan was a hero to gays, and Obama has not been to date. I know, I know. The Evil Ronald Reagan, who practically invented AIDS? Reagan, the Adolf Eichmann of the Gay World? Not true. Not by a country mile!

In fact, Ronald Reagan was a better friend to gays and lesbians in his age than Barack Obama has been to gays in his. But don’t even go by what I say. I’m a right wing extremist, and very biased to what I believe. I admit it. Who isn’t these days? The press? LOL! But here are some irrefutable facts on The One and The Gipper I thought I’d throw out there. A gay buffet for thought, if you will. With swimming pools. And movie stars.

You may not know this, but like former presidential candidate Barack Obama, then-candidate Ronald Reagan faced a polarizing gay-related California ballot referendum of his own in 1978. It was called the Briggs Initiative, better known as Prop 6, and would have banned all gays and lesbians from teaching in California schools.

This, in an America not nearly as tolerant of homosexuals or gay issues back then as now. Just ask ‘em. I remember. I read the far left Boston Phoenix. It was free, why not? And I knew fag haters. Too many, actually. But I digress. Back to 1978 California, presidential candidate Ronald Reagan, gays and the Briggs Initiative, better known as Prop 6.

As Prop 6 appeared to be gaining steam as the vote neared, with State Senator John Briggs stoking fears of gay teachers in the classroom with the full backing of California’s right wing, gays and lesbians were terrified that Prop 6 might actually become law. In their darkest hour, they turned to a most unlikely hero and savior: former California governor and conservative Republican Ronald Reagan, then gearing up for his 1980 presidential run.

After hearing the group’s concerns, candidate Reagan not only agreed with them, but became the bill’s most public detractor, even penning a scathing op-ed against it in the now-defunct Los Angeles Herald-Examiner, in which he said the following:

“Whatever else it is, homosexuality is not a contagious disease like the measles. Prevailing scientific opinion is that an individual’s sexuality is determined at a very early age and that a child’s teachers do not really influence this.”

Ronnie also stated that the same laws regarding the safety of schoolchildren applied to ALL teachers in the state. How’s THAT for progressive thinking from a conservative Republican, in an America not eight years removed from the Stonewall Riots? With former two-time Governor Reagan’s stern and vocal opposition, Prop 6 lost by a million votes. And John Briggs lost his race for governor in the primaries.

In taking the bold stand he did, candidate Reagan completely alienated the right wing in California, which blamed him for both the Prop 6 defeat and John Briggs’ primary loss. It was an act of political courage on Reagan’s part that might not only have cost him electoral vote-rich California, but the Presidency itself.

As it turned out, Ronald Reagan took California by a handy seventeen points in his 1980 landslide pummeling of Jimmy Carter, sending the President back to his peanut farm in Georgia (if only he had stayed there). And you can bet a lot of grateful gays and lesbians remembered Ronnie’s championing their cause, and pulled the lever for The Gipper. But despite all that, Ronald Reagan was a conservative of his time. Tolerance did not mean acceptance.

Again, from the Independent Gay Forum:

Reagan: “My criticism is that [the gay movement] isn’t just asking for civil rights; it’s asking for recognition and acceptance of an alternative lifestyle which I do not believe society can condone, nor can I.”

Aside from his tolerant personal attitude, Reagan’s actual record on civil liberties for gays was surprisingly good. Cannon reports that Reagan was “repelled by the aggressive public crusades against homosexual life styles which became a staple of right wing politics in the late 1970s.

Though liberals may harangue Ronald Reagan as I’ve indicated, the fact remains. When gays and lesbians desperately needed him as they faced REAL institutionalized homophobia, Ronald Reagan was there for them, and in a major way that turned the tide completely in their favor. In fact, the openly gay Log Cabin Republicans were spawned from this huge political victory.

Now let us move on to candidate Barack Obama and his wishy-washy stand on Prop 8, the gay California ballot referendum of his time:

“I’ve stated my opposition to this. I think [Prop 8 is] unnecessary. I believe marriage is between a man and a woman. I am not in favor of gay marriage. But when you start playing around with constitutions, just to prohibit somebody who cares about another person, it just seems to me that’s not what America’s about. Usually, our constitutions expand liberties, they don’t contract them.”

The main point that seemed to escape candidate Obama at this time was that they WERE playing around with the California Constitution. I believe candidate Obama missed an opportunity here to take a bold stand on gay issues like Reagan did, and speak out against Prop 8 from the liberal Democrat POV. He was, and is, a very charming and charismatic candidate and President. No denying that. He could have used that charisma and charm to sway many minds over, and with a very simple statement that could have swung the Prop 8 vote the 3 points it needed to pass.

Example:

“Though I myself oppose gay marriage, I cannot let this Constitutional ban go unchallenged. Amendments that restrict rights instead of expanding them are un-American. Therefore, I oppose the passage of Proposition 8, and I hope you will, too. I will further state that I only support this measure as civil procedure.

“Churches and individuals that are morally opposed to gay marriage should not be compelled under legal threat or duress to participate. That is their right under freedom of religion. I would no more want gays invading the rights of churches, than I would want churches invading the rights of gays.”

But, no. What we got was candidate Obama wetting his finger and sticking it in the air. Just like Bill Clinton with his poll-driven morality, trying to have it both ways. Not much Hope For Change there with regard to Democratic presidents, it would seem. Even in office, the Obama Administration has been wishy-washy on pushing gay issues like Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. But I don’t really care about that. Obama and gay advocates can hammer out DADT, among many other issues.

But even as a straight man, I am VERY concerned about the officially-sanctioned extermination of LGBTs in Iraq on our dime, what I now call the Gay Holocaust in Iraq. What else do you call a specifically targeted pogrom, with the express goal of exterminating a segment of the population? If this were merely a death squad issue, that would be matter for the Iraqi government.

Unfortunately, the Iraqi government is neck-deep in the gay butchery themselves. Interior Ministry police hunt down gays in Baghdad, raid parties, hunt them online by using fake foreign IP addresses (as Iran does),  then tortures and exterminates them in the worst possible ways. Just as Iraqi Spiritual Leader Ali al-Sistani declared they should be, in his 2006 fatwa of death against Iraqi LGBTs. Though removed from his website after controversy, the fatwa is still in full effect.

Allow me at this point to question the spirituality of a religious leader favoring any pogrom, or stating that ANYONE should die in the ‘worst possible ways’.

Here is one former Mahdi Army member who now makes a career of being a gay death squad ’surgeon,’ cutting out the cancer of homosexuality the Americans brought with them to Iraq. His words, not mine. Also, one particularly subhuman technique of killing gays, now quite popular with Iraq’s most pious Shiite extremists, is to super-glue a gay man’s anus shut, pump him full of a diarrhea-inducing compound, and have a few laughs as the victim suffers unbelievable agony before dying. The Iraqi tribes also now have carte blanche to exterminate any Iraqi LGBTs they find.

Unfortunately, this Gay Holocaust of Iraqi LGBTs, which has already claimed nearly 500 innocent lives in the most gruesome of ways since the 2003 invasion, and is now ramping up in violence and horror by the day, enjoys wide public support in Islamic Iraq. Just take a look at this recent report, also from Common Ills:

This morning AFP is reporting that signs are going up around the Sadr City neighborhood of Baghdad threatening to kill a list of people alleged to be gay. The posters are put out by the Brigades of the Righteous and AFP translates the posters as stating, “We will punish you, perverts” and “We will get you, puppies” has been scrawled on some posters — “puppies” being slang for gay males in Iraq. The Australian carries the AFP report here. These posters are going up around Sadr City. Where is the United Nations condemnation? Where is the White House, where is the US State Dept?

Very good questions, to which you may not like the answers. I know I don’t. Here’s State’s response to this worsening gay horrorshow in Iraq, again from the Common Ills blog:

Noel Clay, a State Department spokesperson, said U.S. officials “condemn the persecution of LGBTs in Iraq,” but he couldn’t confirm whether the violence they’re facing in Iraq is because of their sexual orientation. Clay noted that while homosexuality is against the law in Iraq, the death penalty is not the punishment for homosexual acts.

Now I don’t know who Noel Clay is, but I do now know that Inspector Clouseau is Einstein by comparison. I’m finding too much evidence. I don’t even have to look! How dangerously stupid is Noel Clay, to be in that lofty position as State and be so ignorant of the facts? Is he just stupid? Or worse, is it willful ignorance?

To be fair, this gay horrorshow started on President Bush’s watch. He should have done far more to nip it in the bud in 2006 after Sistani’s fatwa. In my mind, that will remain a black mark on his record. He should have put a stop to it, instead of letting it fester to the point it is today. All that said, this issue is now fully the Obama Administration’s and Congress’ problem lock, stock and barrel.

So where is President Obama? Secretary Clinton? Madame SOS said she would stand with ALL the Iraqi people! Where is she on this issue, so near and dear to gay hearts? Nothing on State’s main or Iraq pages. Even Queerty, a major gay blog, is slamming Hillary on this issue. How bad is that? Where is our Gay Rights Hero President on our American tax dollars subsidizing a Gay Holocaust?

What are we fighting for there? Freedom? What are we defending Iraq from? Islamist extremism? Starting to look like a lost war to me! And I supported President Bush every step of the way on this war, even when he was getting hammered for it by everyone! I believed the Iraqi people deserved a shot. For the first time in six years, I’m not so sure anymore.

I look at it this way. Either the Iraqi government and people can put a stop to this Auschwitz-like Gay Holocaust in Iraq, or I say withdraw and let Al Qaeda in Iraq take over. Certainly wouldn’t make life any worse for Iraqi LGBTs. And they can ALL share in the terror they enjoy so much! Hell, I’d even be willing to help and support Al Qaeda do just that! But only this once. You know. Like a Christmas armistice. Wouldn’t be the first time we helped Al Qaeda fight terror.

A brilliant strategy on fighting the war on state-sponsored Islamist terror too, if you think about it. Not only would Iran lose its considerable Iraqi Shiite power base, a supreme Sunni Al Qaeda in Iraq would be a mortal foe, and would no doubt be plotting 9/11s for Tehran and elsewhere in the Islamic Republic. As a bonus, Iraq Shiite extremists like the ’surgeon’ and all his gay-butchering Islamist Nazi pals would be the first to be hunted down and exterminated by a supreme Al Qaeda in Iraq. They could ALL enjoy some open-air surgery and super-glue enemas!

How Joker-like blackly comic great would THAT be?

Considering Iran has now seemed to have successfully exported their own Gay Holocaust to Iraq, how Joker-like great would all that be, too! I say let a Sunni extremist Iraq and Shiite extremist Iran turn each others’ nations into bombed-out wastelands of terror. And without the loss of one American life or dime. It’s one idea, anyway. Another hor d’ouevre for thought. And it couldn’t happen to nicer guys. Unless, of course, the Iraqi people decide to refrain from their most-popular anti-gay pogrom and join the civilized. Otherwise, I see no point in defending them any longer.

It sure would be nice to see others speaking out against this taxpayer-funded gay horrorshow in Iraq. Like our Gay Hero President, for example. Knowing Ronnie as I do, I’m sure he wouldn’t stand for this kind of abomination in any nation being rebuilt with American taxpayer dollars, or protected by American soldiers.

Congress, State and The White House really need to hear about this LGBT horrorshow in Iraq, loudly and repeatedly. Short of war, there’s nothing we can do about Iran’s Himmler-like extermination of gays. War works for me, though. But Iraq is ours. We broke it, we fix it. And you could not have much more severe of a breakage in Iraq than a Gay Holocaust. This is 100% Obama’s and the current government’s problem now. Those gay anal super-glueings started on their watch.

Time to stop it. Like right now.

Also, since Hollywood pretty much propelled Obama into office, why don’t you get on the horn to the gay and human rights chumps at AMPAS? See if they can give their best bud and Gay Rights Hero Obamamessiah a shoutout. Then again, considering AMPAS’ and Hollywood’s own deafening silence on Roxana Saberi and Iran’s Gay Holocaust, maybe we’d better wait until the next Oscars for them to champion “gay rights for everyone” again, like Penn and Black so tearfully pleaded for.

That stuff looks SO good on TV, doesn’t it? Just like President Obama and his so-called championing of gay rights, which appears to be totally MIA on EVERY gay rights issue. Hell, I’m a Reagan Republican, and I have a better record on this issue than all of them combined! I don’t care that they’re gay! They’re innocent human beings, and they’re being horribly tortured and brutally exterminated! Do you have to be Jewish to be totally repulsed by Auschwitz?

Based on Reagan’s record, I believe The Gipper would have put a stop to that shite and ordered American troops to hunt down the death squads, as American GIs once hunted down the SS ‘werewolves’ in postwar Berlin. I also believe he would have pummeled al-Maliki’s Shiite government over the issue as well. Which only makes the silence by the Obama Administration and Congress on this issue more profoundly deafening. O Gay Rights Hero President, where ARE you?

Oh  and if any of you ObamaBots believe anything I’ve said here is fantastic or untrue, look it up yourselves. I’m tired of spending hours researching and linking stuff I already know inside out. Plenty out there on all this gay horrorshow stuff, in both Iran and Iraq. Too much, actually. The Internet’s glutted with it! You just have to look. And not the other way, as even the Invisible Press seems content to. Look at how few in the MSM are reporting on this abomination. Gay blogs, mostly, along with the BBC and some S.F. TV affiliates.

The rest I leave to you. And our Gay Hero President and Congressional gay rights champs. Ya, As if. Too busy saying Israel needs a tougher line. Um, excuse me?

Goddamn, I miss Ronald Reagan. He stood up even for those he totally disagreed with. This bunch won’t even stand up for those they profess to champion! I guess that part I must leave to you, Dear Readers. Won’t you speak up for those who can’t, to those who should be and aren’t?

Do it for Ronnie! This is the ULTIMATE in taxpayer issues!

And somebody wake up Perez Hilton. Bigger problem here than Miss California, methinks. See if she can’t get the Prop 8 crowd as rabid on the horrific slaughter of Iraqi and Iranian gays as they are with the Mormon Church and us! I’ve sent him a dozen emails on this stuff. Crickets! My Gay Hero.

And just to show I’m not partisan or picking on Perez here (which is just too easy to do), the Log Cabin Republicans linked above need a shoutout, too. I’ve been cc’ing them on all my Perez Hilton emails. None too pleased with their response, either. Time to step it up. Hell, they’re the gays here! Why do I and only a handful of REAL gay advocates have to be the ones screaming to the skies about all this gay horrorshow stuff?

Hmm. Interesting question, indeed.

In another notable understatement (considering that the Islamist foothold in England is so great that it gave rise to the expression “Londonistan”), BBC arts correspondent Lawrence Pollard said recently that the Rushdie controversy galvanized “a stronger sense of Muslim identity in Britain.”  Nothing like having a blasphemer to behead to bring some people together, I guess.  “Until that time there had been assumed support for the broad principle of free speech,” Pollard adds.  “The Rushdie affair introduced the question of how far free expression should be limited to avoid offending religious feelings in a multicultural society.”

No, it introduced the question of how far expression should be limited to avoid the hysterical, worldwide, lethal mob violence of Muslims, since no one in the media, especially the BBC, gives a second thought to offending the religious feelings of Buddhists, Jews, Hindus, animists, Satanists and especially Christians, because none of those groups will kill you for it.  Indeed, taking pop culture potshots at Christianity is such a common pastime for the Western media that Christians can barely even muster the energy for an angry e-mail or two.

To name just two examples: An episode of Cold Case in late 2007 depicted a group of devout Christian teens in an abstinence club (don’t feel bad, I didn’t know such things exist either, but I want to know where I can sign up my future teenagers), who stoned a girl to death for breaking her vow.  In a 2008 episode of the BBC’s Bonekickers, a Christian extremist beheads a Muslim.

Christians committing stonings and beheadings?  The reason such perversions of reality can be aired is that the entertainment industry knows that any horror, no matter how ludicrously false and offensive, can be attributed to Christians without fear of retribution, and that no horror, no matter how demonstrably true, can be attributed to some Muslims without incurring a fatwa and violating the Prime Directive of multiculturalism, which holds that all cultures must be equally valued and respected – except Western culture, which is inherently evil, racist, imperialist, exploitative. . . et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, as Yul Brynner might say.

(Let me stop right here and insert the standard, ubiquitous disclaimer that the majority of the world’s Muslims, especially in America, are themselves offended by and reject such pre-medieval horrors.  This would seem to be so obvious that it doesn’t need stating, but apparently it does, because any criticism of Islamist behavior is immediately met with loud protestations that not all Muslims are terrorists.  Of course they aren’t; what reasonable person ever said they were?  And while I’m at it, let me deal with the other kneejerk objection that always arises in discussions of these matters: “What about the Crusades?  Christianity’s just as bad!”  The blindingly obvious answer is, that was 800 years ago.  Christianity’s moved on, fundamentalist Islam hasn’t.)

Speaking of moving on, how far we haven’t come in those 20 years since the Rushdie affair.  Last week Dutch Parliamentarian Geert Wilders (about whom documentarian Michael Wilson has written more on Big Hollywood here) was refused entry into England, the epicenter of European Islamic extremism, because his short film Fitna, which graphically links violence carried out in the name of Islam to the inciting proclamations of radical Muslim clerics, is denounced by some as “hate speech.”  That’s right – it’s okay in Europe for Islamists to spew the foulest incitements to bigotry, hatred, murder and mayhem, and then act them out, but it’s unacceptable to point out that they’re doing it.

Wilders, whose name is invariably preceded in media reports by the dismissive label “right-wing” (media-code for “a racist crank who is not to be taken seriously and who deserves a good beheading”) has replaced Rushdie as the newest (last year it was the brilliant Mark Steyn) and most visible lightning rod of the assault on free speech currently being waged by Islamists.  Groups like the fifty-seven member nations of the Organization of the Islamic Conference are pushing hard to make such “Islamophobia” as Wilders’ film an international crime.  Indeed, the OIC condemns Islamophobia as “the worst form of terrorism.”  No doubt the Rabbi and his pregnant wife, who were horrifically tortured and murdered by rampaging jihadists in the recent Mumbai attacks, would beg to differ if they could.

But back to Christianophobia and the double standard in the media.  Recently I saw a repeat episode of Family Guy in which God was depicted farting the universe into existence.  If Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane had depicted Allah at all, much less expelling gas, he would now be living as Geert Wilders has for years, under 24-hour security to avoid being butchered by a self-righteous fanatic, as was his former countryman, controversial film director Theo van Gogh.  But MacFarlane knows he has nothing to fear from, say, right-wing Christian evangelicals, despite the fact that liberals consider them a more dangerous and imminent threat to America than al Qaeda.

Only the religion of global warming environmentalism enjoys as much freedom from media criticism as radical Islam – and strangely, global warming too is considered a more terrifying threat.  I have news for Al Gore and his devotees: when we’re all living under sharia law, global warming will be the least of our problems.

As for Islamophobia, an “irrational fear of Islam” does not even exist; it is a trumped-up charge designed to bully us into silence and deflect criticism from the Islamists as they go about plotting terrorism and trying to shoehorn sharia law into our culture.  A perfectly rational concern about the demonstrable threat of Islamic extremism does exist, however; that’s what Geert Wilders’ film expresses, and that’s what the Western media must be willing to throw a spotlight on.  The media and entertainment industry has had plenty of practice offending Christian religious sensibilities; it must now take the lead in pushing back against our Islamist enemies who are free speech’s most serious threat.

I’m not holding my breath.