As details became clearer the death toll rose and the attack seemed to be the work of a single shooter, Major Nidal Malik Hasan, a devout Muslim. As the day wore on it became clear that Major Hasan held radical beliefs concerning United States foreign policy and had shared those beliefs not with just a few close friend but with just about anyone who would listen.

Then it was announced that the President was going to speak about the shootings. I expected to hear a calming voice that would honor those slain and get to the heart of the matter: We have a serious problem in this country with domestic terrorists both in and out of the military and we need to do something about it.   

Since I had been in the car all day and listening to news/talk radio I knew the President was at a meeting of American Indian tribal leaders. When he came on the radio his first remarks were not about Fort Hood but about the conference. His tone wasn’t serious but he jokingly made comments about the conference. I don’t want to try to read too much into this but usually when we speak we talk about the most important things first and then move to the trivial. He complimented the Secretary of the Interior for a great day and gave a “shout out” to a conference attendee. He then continued for another 150 words until he got to the shootings. The most important thing he said in reference to the shootings was,

“We will make sure that we get answers to every single question about this horrible incident…”

That is what I wanted to hear! The consequences be damned, we are going to get to the bottom of this. Great! However, before the weekend was over we were being assured, by the President, the Attorney General and the Director of Homeland Security and by any other administration official who could get their mug in front of a camera that this was not an act of terrorism. How could they know? Did they have all the facts? It reminded me of President Obama’s reaction to another much less important incident when his friend was arrested after lipping off to a cop. He said something about not wanting to jump to conclusions but the police acted stupidly.

Why isn’t Major Hasan being considered a terrorist by the White House? Is it because he acted alone? Is it because he used a gun instead of a belt of explosives? Is it because he wasn’t part of a larger group? Is it because he may have been mentally unbalanced?

There have been a number of attacks in this country in recent years that have been dismissed rather than being looked at as acts of terror. Meanwhile some folks are quick to be labeled terrorists. The shooter of an abortion doctor, a lone gunman at the National Holocaust Museum and a bomber at the Olympic Games were all quickly branded terrorists. These were similar to the Fort Hood shooting in that all were done by a single person acting outside any organized group and two of the used firearms rather than explosives. The difference? Major Hasan and others who have committed acts of terror that were not labeled as such were Muslims. Why are we hesitant to label acts of violence by Muslim-Americans “terror?”

Before you go ballistic and claim that I am branding an entire religion as terrorists I want to say I believe that 99.9% of Muslim-Americans are loyal citizens who see their religion as a peaceful one. That being said there are approximately 5000 Muslims serving in the military today. If just .1% of them believe, like Major Hasan, that acts of terror are justified then there are four more guys just like him waiting for their chance.

So, denying the role militant Islam played in the Fort Hood atrocity is like staring at a shark bite and thinking, “bicycle.”

When a fundamentalist kills thirteen innocent people while shouting “allahu akbar,” Islam isn’t just a small player – it’s got a starring role. And now that U.S. intelligence admits Hasan tried to contact al Qaeda, it should make it increasingly hard for anyone to say otherwise.

I say it “should,” but it won’t.

Look at the news.

Over at Time, thoughtful types speculate over a “secondary trauma” that could have driven Hasan to kill. Never mind terror – one news network tells us we should focus more on “a backlash against Muslim soldiers.” On a major website, they want us to ponder the “next McVeigh.” And our very own Homeland Security secretary says she’s hard at work preventing “a possible wave of anti-Muslim sentiment.”

And that’s the drill: concern over crimes that have never happened, as opposed to the terror that has. When Americans are murdered in cold blood, the first step in our screwed-up world is to chant, “backlash.” Never mind that backlash concerns may have allowed this massacre to occur in the first place. Hasan exhibited more signs than a horoscope – yet fears over appearing politically incorrect kept him around.

The fact is, in mosques all over the world, the desire to destroy the west continues – and our administration still worries about what you might do. The PC thing? Avoid “connecting the dots,” but stick to the “square peg in round hole” equation: a troubled man feeling hopeless in a weird world, suddenly snaps and kills people.

But it’s more than that. The defiant Muslim living in America has contempt for modern life, your lifestyle, your beliefs. Add to this a rejection of female equality, which pretty much eliminates any chance for a hook-up – and you’ve got a madman on a mission.

I suppose saying all this makes me a right-wing hate monger. But that’s the point. When a man kills Americans in the name of Allah – and you become a bad guy for pointing that out – then it’s time to be the bad guy.

It’s far better than moaning “why do they hate us.”

tonight, Jim Norton (fun!), S.E. Cupp (yum!), Jonathan Hoenig (rich!) and, other stuff!

“The mainstream Hollywood crowd, an apologist group that enjoys traveling to Taliban-run countries such as Iran spreading their holier-than-thou “cultural understanding” of rogue regimes, has been effectively censored by Moslem clerics. Filmmaker Roland Emmerich chose not to blow up the Kaaba at Mecca in his film 2012 for fear of a fatwa (death sentence issued by Moslem clerics) being placed on his head.

“Yet, in 2005, actor Sean Penn went to cover a so-called Islamic Republic “election” wanting Americans to visit Iran and become familiar with its culture. In March 2009, director Phil Alden Robinson found that Iranians were not very different; and actress Annette Bening (surely with a headscarf given Iran’s brutal enforcement of hijab) hoped her trip to Iran would jump start a bridge between the U.S. and the mullahs in Tehran.

“These frivolous, superficial entertainers turned international political experts, who cause socio-political damages beyond the limits of this article for their misguided trips to imprisoned societies, are now censored in their own free societies by the mere thought of being personally harmed. Ironically, Emmerich’s admission may actually teach Americans about mullahcracy compliments of Hollywood.”

Read the full article here.

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!

There’s absolutely nothing wrong with a respectful, big-budget biopic of the prophet Muhammad – that’s not the point – but it’s well worth remembering that while he was one of the biggest movie stars in the world, Oscar-winning director Mel Gibson had his ”Passion of the Christ” turned down by every studio in town. You know, even though 70% of Americans identify themselves as Christians.

Now, if Gibson had produced “The Pissing on the Christ…”

Producer Barrie Osborne cast Keanu Reeves as the messiah in The Matrix and helped defeat the dark lord Sauron in his record-breaking Lord of the Rings trilogy. Now the Oscar-winning American film-maker is set to embark on his most perilous quest to date: making a big-screen biopic of the prophet Muhammad.

Budgeted at around $150m (£91.5m), the film will chart Muhammad’s life and examine his teachings. Osborne told Reuters that he envisages it as “an international epic production aimed at bridging cultures. The film will educate people about the true meaning of Islam“.

The article then goes on to inform us that out of respect for Islamic law Muhammad will not be shown on the screen. If only such respect was extended to every major religion. Which isn’t to say religion, including Christianity, is above satire, but what we have here is another example of the mindset of those who control the most powerful propaganda machine ever created. Think about it: “The Passion” remains one of the most profitable films ever and yet an industry frequently ridiculed for reproducing ad nauseum anything resembling a hit will have none of it.  

Feel free to comment away but please don’t make the mistake of accusing Hollywood of hypocrisy. This is an ideological war and there are no rules in war and anyone wringing their hands over “not playing fair” are missing the point.  

When you loath Christians and want to do everything in your power to marginalize who they are what they stand for, there’s nothing at all hypocritical about pissing on Christ and deferring to Muhammad.

In fact, that behavior is perfectly consistent.

***

Yes, I know, I know … even people I respect, those from our side of the aisle, are telling me that when it comes to Larry David’s urine and the “Onion” wishing Glenn Beck dead that I need to take a joke and not conform the stereotype of a stodgy, humorless conservative. But…

• “South Park” has never offended me.
• One of my first DVD purchases was “The Life of Brian.”
• Here’s my eulogy to The Mighty George Carlin.

I can take a joke, even a satiric savaging.

What I don’t take so well are cheap shots … even at the expense of my Hip Credentials.

“Larry David would never do this to Muslims. He doesn’t have the guts.”

That’s missing the point.

Hypocrisy or a fear of how some wacko extremist might react has nothing to do with this. Hollywood constantly singles out Christians for cruel ridicule and the worst kind of stereotyping for one simple reason…

They hate us.

They hate our guts.

There’s nothing more complicated to this question than that.

I promise you that if every Muslim on the planet was as gentle as a kitten, it would still be Christians singled out by the entertainment industry at every opportunity.

Now, you wouldn’t know it from following modern-day pop culture, but we Christians do have a sense of humor and are just as capable of laughing at ourselves as anyone. But we also know when we’re being singled out, when we’re being laughed at and the difference between good-natured and mean-spirited. We acknowledge that there are many good people working in Hollywood who oppose this kind of bigotry and double-standard, just not enough of them to put a stop to it…

Here’s how much they hate us, how much they want to hurt us — and it goes way beyond a willingness to damage their own bottom line…

Good people hurt innocent people every day. We lose our tempers, say things in anger and generally come to regret it later. That’s one of the rougher parts of dealing with the human condition. And when good people watch Larry David piss on Christ, his mocking and blatant disrespect makes them angry. Some might even think, ”I should produce a YouTube of me pissing on Hollywood’s god – Barack Obama!” Which wouldn’t be a difficult or expensive thing to do in this digital age.

But good people don’t follow through on such things. Eventually, their better nature takes over as they think about how such a cruel and disrespectful act might hurt those they know who admire Obama … or the president’s two young daughters. 

Nothing, however, stopped Larry David — not the time, logistics, planning or funds needed to put this cruel episode together. David’s not a dumb man, and neither are the many people who made the production possible. Every one of them knew exactly what they were doing, what the outcome would be and what Christ means to His followers. 

And they relished every moment of it; the planning, execution and most of all, the uproar and disappointment that followed.

Anger puts cruel thoughts in your head. Hate’s the fuel required to take you across the finish line.

There’s no shortage of fuel in Hollywood.

WASHINGTON, Oct. 29 /PRNewswire-USNewswire/ — A prominent national Muslim civil rights and advocacy organization today called on HBO to apologize for an episode of “Curb Your Enthusiasm” in which the main character splattered urine on a painting of Jesus.

SEE: Larry David Blasted for ‘Curb’ Episode Where He Urinates on Jesus Painting http://tinyurl.com/hboepisode

In a letter to HBO Chairman and CEO Bill Nelson, Nihad Awad, national executive director of the Washington-based Council on American-Islamic Relations (CAIR) wrote:

“It is beyond tasteless to insult the religious sensibilities of billions of people in America and around the world with such a cheap and vulgar publicity stunt. Jesus, peace be upon him, is loved and revered by both Christians and Muslims. Muslims view him as one of God’s greatest messengers to mankind.

“The Quran, Islam’s revealed text, states: ‘Behold! The angels said: “O Mary! God gives you glad tidings of a Word from Him. His name will be Jesus Christ, the son of Mary, held in honor in this world and the Hereafter and in (the company of) those nearest to God.” (The Holy Quran, 3:45)

“The Prophet Muhammad said: ‘Both in this world and in the hereafter, I am the nearest of all people to Jesus, the son of Mary. The prophets are paternal brothers; their mothers are different, but their religion is one.’

“We understand the drive for ratings, but no one benefits from such a crude attempt to boost the network’s bottom line by manufacturing a religious controversy. HBO should apologize.”

Awad added that American Muslim television viewers contacted CAIR to express their concerns about the HBO episode.

CAIR is America’s largest Muslim civil liberties and advocacy organization. Its mission is to enhance the understanding of Islam, encourage dialogue, protect civil liberties, empower American Muslims, and build coalitions that promote justice and mutual understanding.

It is a continuing fascination for me that conservatives are constantly depicted as wearing Jackboots and engaging in intimidation, violence and general thuggery. However, current events suggest that more often it is the new left that is wearing jack boots and not the right.

For instance who was doing the goose-stepping when radio host Rush Limbaugh was booted from an investment group trying to buy the NFL franchise St. Louis Rams? The new left lied and slandered Limbaugh with the aim of denying him an economic opportunity. Denying a man opportunity because we don’t like what he believes, what he says or what he looks like is (or should be) anathema to a free society. Shame on Dave Checketts and Roger Goodell for giving in to cheap intimidation and ideological bigotry! By their cowardice we are all diminished.

Many on the left disagree and are no doubt satisfied at the outcome. But for whom does the bell toll next? Who else’s opinions will be objectionable? What makes a football team any different from any other business that employs people? Should anyone with unpopular beliefs be barred from owning, say, a Burger King franchise? Should we then also check ideological credentials at the gates of certain neighborhoods? The doors to our schools?

The left often dons the coat of righteous indignation because it tends to give one an air of civility. They are not, however, above some good old fashioned name calling or back alley beat-downs.

Recall the response of Dennis Rivera, health care chairman of the Service Employees International Union, (SEIU) – as well as a master of irony — following the arrest of two of his esteemed members for allegedly pummeling a conservative protester senseless. Rivera denounced conservative “terrorist tactics” aimed at derailing the debate on health care reform. Terrorists tactics are now defined as peaceful protest.

Rivera is not the only one with a rather elastic definition of terrorism; Rosabeth Moss Kanter a professor at Harvard business school writing in Politico justifies the depiction of tea partiers, conservatives and health care reform protesters as racist buffoons because they are enemies of America. Kanter writes: “President [Barack] Obama is marginalizing not just his enemies but those of the American people. He is attacking organizations standing in the way of progress toward reforming health care or cleaning up the conditions that led to the financial crisis. He is putting on notice advocates of greed – instead of the greater good – that they no longer have public legitimacy.”

Yes you read it correctly. America’s enemies are not Islamist, North Korean demagogues, or even Maoists and admitted communists working at the highest levels of our government. Rather they are American citizens that disagree with this president and other new liberals on the degree to which government should interfere and control our economic and cultural institutions. No doubt they had better keep their opinions to themselves lest they be greeted with some of what Rush got.

I have been working on a collection of thoughts by Americans on their love of America. After agreeing to participate a comedian friend of mine reneged. He joked that he didn’t want to be dragged from his car and beaten for having his name appear in a conservative book. Two things struck me as peculiar: first that loving ones country and writing about it is a “conservative” activity (not my belief but apparently his), and that he would joke of his concern that the liberal thought police would find him and give him a beat him for stepping out of line.

As my mother used to say, “Many a truth is said in jest.”

Obviously my friend had discarded his rose colored glasses long ago.

This one’s for the writers and artists who tell the truth about the enemy, using the enemy’s own words and actions against them.  As for my own work, find out why it led a troll to actually post this at my blog:  “People like you are the reason why I won’t be sad when we all die in a nuclear holocaust.”