During his campaign for the White House President Obama said, “We have seen Afghanistan worsen, deteriorate. We need more troops there. We need more resources there… I would send two to three additional brigades to Afghanistan.”

He promised to send another ten to fifteen thousand troops to help those already there. He also declared that the war in Afghanistan was the proper front in the war against terror. Now that he is Commander-in-Chief, his vision seems to be less clear.

The military commanders gave the President four troop deployment options earlier this week but he refused all four. Not for military reasons but because of some hooey about the corruption of the government in Kabul and their inability to run a fair election. Mr. President, if our support for governments was based on whether they are corrupt or not and could run a fair election, we would have pulled federal funding from Chicago years ago. The problem with pulling out of Afghanistan, or Chicago for that matter, is that they would fall into violent anarchy. We have already seen that happen in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina.

Current thinking on what to do in Afghanistan is based on two faulty assumptions:

The first is that wars are clear and concise events with specific outcomes and easy to find exit points. When John McCain told us the truth about how long we might be in Iraq, we didn’t want to hear it. We have been in Japan and Germany for over sixty years and in the Philippines for much longer. I wonder if back during the Spanish- American War leftist were telling the President that the Philippines were tribal islands and would never be able to be organized into a stable democratic government?

The second faulty assumption is that if we walk away from Afghanistan, simply pull all of our troops out, the war it then over. How long would it be before the Taliban was running things again and Al Qaeda was using it as a base of operations?  We will be fighting the same people again in the future, perhaps armed with nuclear weapons from Iran or Pakistan. Our national attention span has shortened to Twitter-like dimensions while our enemies think in terms of centuries.

The real problem for President Obama is that is if he deploys more troops and commits to staying, Afghanistan is no longer Bush’s war but his. Not even a year into his term and he is already worried about his legacy rather than doing what is best for the country. He is worried that his presidency will get bogged down in the battle for liberty instead of being able to focus on strengthening ACORN and the SEIU.

The left doesn’t mind waging long, costly, and non-winnable wars, so long as they are they start them themselves. Look at the war on poverty and the war on drugs. Our cities are littered with the lives ruined by those wars. We have thrown enough money into those two rat holes to finance Iraq and Afghanistan for the next fifty years and toss in twenty years of free government health care to boot. Do we have an exit strategy from the Welfare State, Mr. President?

George Clooney in 2005’s  Syriana

Meanwhile the national discussion has segued to our own collective insanity, political correctness, which we are now discovering paved the very way for the massacre. It is this cultural and mental straightjacket that forced a U.S. Army general to say diversity is more important than losing American lives; that compelled our Homeland Security Secretary to reassure the Arab world that we’re doing everything we can to protect against a mythical Muslim backlash; that prevented people from speaking out about red flags that could have saved the lives of everyone murdered at Ft. Hood; and that prevents our officials from even naming the enemy. No such ailment afflicts the jihadists, however, who are celebrating Hasan as a hero, who have no problem acknowledging his ideological intent, and who recognize our political correctness as a self-inflicted fatal wound. Unlike our leaders and media elites, they don’t sap their wartime focus with hand-wringing and navel-gazing.

Also unlike us, they have no problem asserting their values in the war’s crucial cultural front, either, a theater of operations where we are weakest. A burgeoning Arab film industry, for example, in partnership with Hollywood, is set to make unapologetic and positive cinematic portrayals of Islam as important an export as oil. Abu Dhabi is investing $1 billion in movie productions over the next few years. Crash and In the Valley of Elah screenwriter Paul Haggis recently taught a screenwriting master class in Dubai to fifty promising and “socially and politically astute” writers. A Qatari media company is pairing with Lord of the Rings producer Barrie Osborne on a $150 million biopic of the Muslim prophet Mohammed – “a profound genius,” says Osborne, ”who founded a religion whose name in Islam signifies peace and reconciliation. This is what our film will aspire to do.”

Yusuf Al-Qaradawi

Very high-minded, if misinformed. But what’s wrong, you ask, with such multicultural bridge-building in this time of conflict between Islam and the West? Well, here’s an eyebrow-raiser for you about the Mohammed biopic: its “technical consultant” is Sheikh Yusuf al-Qaradawi, the vastly influential spiritual leader of the Muslim Brotherhood, a Sunni movement whose aim is the imposition of Sharia worldwide and “the destruction of Western civilization from within.” Al-Qaradawi has issued fatwas in support of suicide bombings in Israel, attacks on coalition soldiers in Iraq and Afghanistan, and the execution of Jews and gays. With him guiding the project, it’s starting to sound less like an effort to promote ”peace and reconciliation” and more like a propagandistic Trojan horse. Certainly not every film in the forthcoming cinematic wave out of the Middle East will have a dark design; but do not doubt that the Islamists recognize the cultural impact of cinema, or that the seemingly benign partnership is useful to their agenda.

And does the cultural exchange run both ways? Is Hollywood equally as eager to export Western values and a positive portrayal of America? I think we all know the answer to that. And why should we expect otherwise? For decades Americans have been conditioned and intimidated by political correctness, and indoctrinated by its handmaiden multiculturalism, to believe that all cultural values and practices are equally valid – except Western culture, which we’re taught is the domain of white male imperialists, racists, and slavers. And Hollywood continues to be at the forefront of the dissemination of that world view, too often denigrating America and whitewashing radical Islam.

 Hollywood may be out of touch with the “flyover” Americans between L.A. and New York, resulting in war-on-terror box office flops like Rendition and Lions for Lambs, but don’t underestimate the influence of its persistently blame-America-first propaganda on young audiences, on coastal elites, and on those countries that hungrily absorb the culture we export. Every time Hollywood makes a Syriana, which has been used as a recruitment tool to radicalize young Muslims; or a Redacted, which has also been used to inflame Muslim opinion against the raping, murdering American occupiers; or a Body of Lies, whose opening quote – “Those to whom evil is done do evil in return” – asserts that Islamic terrorism is just America’s chickens coming home to roost; or a Flightplan, in which you are manipulated into suspecting that the Muslims aboard an airplane are terrorists (Hitchcockian twist: they’re not!); every time Hollywood makes such thinly-veiled agitprop, the PC message is reinforced here and abroad that we are the bad guys, that America’s geopolitical meddling, not global jihad, is the genesis of Islamic terrorism. And therefore we can only end the Big Overseas Misunderstanding, or however President Obama is euphemizing the war on terror these days, by groveling and making amends – which is indeed his strategy for resolving it (resolving, not winning – remember, he’s not comfortable with the word victory).

Our President, who considers it his duty to combat “negative stereotypes of Islam wherever they appear,” is openly pursuing a globalist future in which America abdicates as a superpower. Leftist Hollywood marches in lockstep with that post-American agenda (”It’s an Obama world,” said the director of GI Joe: The Rise of Cobra, a movie scrupulously scrubbed of pro-American symbolism and real-world enemies – like jihadists). This subversive alliance is a prescription for cultural implosion, and an ascendant Islam is positioning itself to fill the void.

One-way multiculturalism in England

Think this is all alarmist, Islamophobic nonsense? It could never happen here, you say? Well it won’t if we do something about it. But if you want to see what a country looks like that has been gutted by multiculturalism, political correctness, and tolerance of the intolerant, and yet which continues to think “it can’t happen here,” see what has become of England. A hundred years ago the sun did not set on its empire; more recently it still stood tall under Churchill and then Thatcher. Now, harboring radical imams and embracing Sharia, it is teetering on the brink of cultural – and even literal – civil war with an unassimilated, radicalized Muslim population that is aggressively uni-cultural. Who could have imagined that this would be England’s future? Only the Islamists could. Back on our shores, Pamela Geller of Atlas Shrugs believes that the maddeningly tentative official response to the Ft. Hood assault is indicative not just of political correctness, but of de facto Sharia, and that we are already ”witnessing an Islamized America.”

The PC multiculturalist agenda, which Hollywood has often taken the lead in pushing, is a cancer that kills people and corrodes countries. It is the insidious source of all our misplaced “Why do they hate us?” agonizing. Not only is it undermining us in this clash of civilization versus barbarism, but it could prove to be the single most critical factor that will result in America’s defeat. But a Hollywood that unashamedly celebrates the American values that this country and the world hunger for can also take the lead in reversing that agenda’s damage; indeed, I believe such a cinematic wave is coming – but that’s a topic for another day.

* The media report thirteen dead, but one of his victims was three months pregnant, which in my book raises the count to fourteen.

“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.

Last week in San Francisco, Obama headlined a three million dollar fundraiser at the Westin St. Francis Hotel. The San Francisco Chronicle reports about 160 people paid $30,400 or more per couple for a private dinner with Obama followed by a reception costing $500 to $1000 that drew over 900 attendees. Among those at the dinner was the leftist, so-called antiwar group Code Pink co-founder, Jodie Evans.

The Chronicle reports Jodie Evans had a several minutes long conversation with Obama at the fundraiser.

Why does Jodie Evans merit such face time with the president even though she acts as an agent of influence for the anti-American governments of Iran, Cuba and Venezuela, as well as Middle Eastern terrorists?

Over the life of the campaign, Jodie Evans became one of Obama’s top donors, giving the maximum $2300 to his respective primary and general election funds and tens of thousands of dollars more to the Obama Victory Fund, a joint Obama-Democratic National Committee fund.

(more…)

It is important because America is choosing to watch Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs catch “dirtbags.” It’s a cop show, you may say. Yes, but these cops are in the Naval Criminal Investigative Service. They solve crimes involving Sailors and Marines. So for one hour every Tuesday (2 hours if you count “NCIS-Los Angeles,” the spinoff) we are in the world of the United States Navy and Marine Corps. 

There are many reasons to watch the show. It is face paced, clever and the audience is drawn into this team with all its unique characters. They are a family and we want to be one of them. They have talents we wish we had and they use them for good. 

Special Agent Tony Dinozza (Michael Weatherly) is the goof off from every office we’ve ever worked in. But he is a former cop and relies on his instincts to come up with that one idea that might solve the case. Of course, he is also a great shot and a good fighter which comes in handy with bad guys. 

Special Agent Timothy McGee (Sean Murray). He is the geek in the office. We know we need him but we can’t figure out what he is doing on the computer. But we pretend we do like Tony. In an increasingly technological world he is the hacker of choice. He is also a good field agent and can shoot as well as the rest of them. I like him especially because he is a best-selling author who wrote a book loosely based on his team mates. 

Forensics Specialist Abby Shuitto (Pauley Perrette), a goth with a master degree in Forensic Science, finds that impossible bit of DNA or chemical compound that solves the case. When all the others have to keep their cool, she is the emotional outlet for all of us. Alone in her lab she plays music, sings, talks to her machines and yells. 

Officer Ziva David (Cote de Pablo)… After last night’s episode I think we can call her “Special Agent.” A former Mossad agent with Daddy problems, she had the task of joining the team after the death of Special Agent Caitlin Todd by Ari the terrorist who turns out to be her half brother who she had to kill to save Gibbs (a little soap opera). I love her character. She is tough, complicated very capable and wounded emotionally. And she wears her Star of David around her neck for all to see. 

Dr. Donald Mallard or “Ducky” (David McCallum), the medical examiner who talks to the corpse. I’ve learned a lot of stuff listening to his digressions into history. He is the symbol of integrity and honor. His work is to find out how the victim was killed so he can help the team catch the killer. But he never forgets the specimen in front of him was once a living human being who has a family and friends who loved him. 

Special Agent Leroy Jethro Gibbs (Mark Harmon), the Special Agent in charge of the team. I left him for last because he is the embodiment of why I think this show says something about America. He is an ex-Marine and fought in Desert Storm. But we learn from him that there is no such thing as an ex-Marine. He is a wounded soul who tragically lost his family. He has seen war and understands those who are in battle now. He knows the truth about the world as he yelled at Dinozzo once, “We are at war and I expect you to fight that war 24/7” His younger team members look up to him and want his approval. He is hard to please. He expects the best. We can all remember a teacher who was really hard on us but whom we appreciated later because we learned to be our best. 

One thing Gibbs teaches us is that members of the Navy and the Marines are human like us. But because of their choice to serve we should appreciate the sacrifices and pressures they and their families endure while protecting us. The Navy’s motto is “Honor, Courage and Commitment” and sailors strive to live up to it every day on carriers, submarines and in far away bases.  Semper Fidelius-Always Faithful is the Marine motto.  Once a Marine, always a Marine. This sense of being committed to something greater than one’s self is what makes this show different and why viewers are drawn to it. 

All of this crime fighting takes place on Navy and Marine bases, aircraft carriers, submarines, and the Navy Yard. Sometimes it is just like civilian crime. It could be a jealous husband, wife or lover, betrayed best friends, or criminals turning on each other. But our team knows that any crime involving the military can threaten the security of the United States. Navy and Marine personnel deal with sensitive information everyday. These investigators have to know what is merely crime or something bigger and more dangerous. 

There has always been an overt acknowledgement on the show of the threat of terrorism The real NCIS agents deal with anti-terrorism operations.  To the real agents and those on the show it is not a “man-made disaster,” it is a terrorist attack. The war in Iraq or Afghanistan is not an “overseas contingency operation.” It is real war and it will go on for a long time even if our approved political vocabulary does not recognize it. We are in danger every minute and this team recognizes it. That is one of the reasons why I believe the show is such a hit. 

It is sad that the threat of terrorism is more real on a TV show than in our government. I noticed the other day that Janet Napolitano, our Homeland Security Secretary, had to admit in an interview that there were some people in the United States with al Qaeda leanings that want to hurt us. Duh!!! 

But on Tuesday nights, when we watch “NCIS,” we know Gibbs has our back. Semper Fi!

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.”

And then, while I sat there in my comfortable American home watching my big screen television on my recently purchased couch with my coffee in hand, in real time, I saw a second plane hit the other tower.

At that moment, I knew:  This is an attack.  And everything changed for me, utterly and completely.

The war that had been going on without our acknowledgement, a war waged by crazed extremists from countries I had never thought about, came crashing into our homes, killing our citizens, destroying one of our country’s landmarks, and re-orienting, in various ways, all of our lives.

I lost no one close to me on that horrible day.  A close friend who was a paramedic in New York gave me a very harrowing account of her experiences, but she survived.  But I still felt such grief, such a horrible sense of loss, at the fact that thousands of my fellow Americans had lost their lives that day just by going to work.

I remember talking to a Canadian friend who called me out of the blue from Montreal to share his feelings, and to tell me how he felt like an American that day, that his sense of loss and grief was overpowering, and he shared that with me, and offered his love.  Over the next few days, I called my closest friends and my family members, purportedly to talk about the events of 9/11, but actually just to tell them I loved them and cherished them.  And all of us shared a sense of resolve: we must, as a nation, confront these people, and make sure that it never happens again.

But that resolve is simply not shared by our current administration.  We are being governed by a President who will not make a speech about the meaning of 9/11.  Instead he will try to rebrand 9/11 into a National Day of Service which will have nothing to do with the attack on our country.  He might  make a speech about how Americans are lying about his health-care plan, and how Americans are behaving badly in town hall meetings, and implying that Americans are liars and racists if they disagree with him.  But he will not mention the terrorist attack that occurred eight years ago, and he will not vow that it will never happen again.

Let us all remember what we felt on that day, even though our government and our media chooses to forget it.  Our survival as a nation depends on it.

The anniversary in the mainstream media will be muted, as always – and we’ll come back to that. And even though three thousand people died that day, I want to concentrate on two – not to exclude the others, but simply to show you that they were not some abstract number but individual lives. 

Kevin Cosgrove

One of the people who died that day, eight years ago, was a businessman working in the World Trade Center. His name was Kevin Cosgrove. Kevin Cosgrove stands out from the other three thousand because he was on the phone to 9/11 when the tower he was in collapsed around him. (Fast forward to about 4:00 if you are pressed for time) And I’m warning you, this is not for the faint hearted. 

–

The most telling and poignant thing I felt when I hear the sound of a man, as the floors of his office fell away around him, is simply that this voice – recorded on tape – was only one of thousands of identical screams of terror that went unrecorded in the floors above and below, and in the other tower. I try to imagine what that must have been like, and how repugnant to their memory the entire idea of 9/11 “trutherism” is.   

There’s somebody else I would like to remember today. In the years since that beautiful clear morning, many people have tried to identify the people who leapt to their deaths to escape the flames. The most famous of these doomed people has been called “The Falling Man.”  

A newspaper article, followed by an exceptional documentary called The Falling Man, attempted to identify him and many of the others who took control of their final moments and plunged to their deaths that day. 

Jonathan Briley

The Falling Man was named Jonathan Briley, and I’d like to remember him today as well. To get the essence of who Jonathan was and the consequences of the decision he made, watch from about 3:15 to from about 3:15 to about 5:15 in this clip from the truly remarkable doc, The Falling Man… 

–

The media won’t show these images. They say they don’t want to rile up the population. I say we should be riled up. There was talk that the current administration plans to “re-brand” 9/11 into a National Day of Service in order to chill out this nation of children they are trying to create. But I’m not going to calm down and “get over all the anger” of 9/11. I promised myself that morning that I would never forget what I saw that day, and I never will. 

Just a few days ago, British Intelligence interrupted a plan that was days away from fruition, and convicted these three Muslim terrorists on charges of attempting to blow up seven airliners in mid-Atlantic. I said Muslim Terrorists because that’s what they are. Throughout the past eight years they have been foiled time and time again by British and American intelligence agencies – the same nameless heroes the Obama administration now wants to prosecute.  I’m sure that will end well. 

We’re not allowed to be enraged, you see? 

Actually, you know what? That’s not true. We are allowed to be enraged, but only about certain things. You can’t be outraged when America is in the right, but you can be outraged when she is in the wrong: about Abu Graib, for example.  Likewise, you are encouraged by the media to be outraged at corporate transgressors like AIG, but outrage at the politicians who caused this mess is given a “dangerously un-American howling mob rabid pack of animals” dismissal. 

It’s a RAGE RATCHET, and it goes one way only: to the left. Well, I refuse to be controlled by these sons of bitches. If what happened to Kevin Cosgrove and Jonathan Briley doesn’t fill you with outrage and anger, not only are you not my moral superior… but your inability to see right and wrong is an indication of deep-seated, delusional psychosis.   

Never forget what happened that day.

Eight years later, and we still haven’t begun to do what needs to be done.

Where my colleague Chris and I most disagree is with the assertion that Hollywood chooses “politically correct” or “safe” villains because Hollywood is all about the money and therefore wants to appeal to audiences who care what the villain looks like:

The film industry, like any other business, generally wants to appeal to the largest audience possible.  Picking “safe” enemies is one way to do that. 

Two of the most profitable films released this past year were “Gran Torino,” where our hero confronts black and Asian street gangs, and “Taken,” where the henchmen are Muslims and the arch-villain Middle Eastern.

With a $33 million production budget, “Torino” made nearly $270 million worldwide. On a budget of just $25 million, “Taken” made an astonishing $145 million domestically and another $79 million overseas. And before you give Hollywood credit for producing two films with politically-incorrect villains, keep in mind that both are notable exceptions; that only a Clint Eastwood could’ve made “Torino,” and “Taken” was produced in France, of all places.

To be clear, my point isn’t that international moviegoers flock to see politically-incorrect villains. My point is that is that audiences don’t care what the villain looks like and that Hollywood’s being dishonest when they say different.  

Like the mainstream media, Hollywood’s cry of being money-driven is a lie to cover an increasingly obvious Leftist political agenda. If Hollywood really is all about making money by “appealing to the largest audience,” why no follow up to one of the most profitable films of all time, “The Passion of the Christ?” Why the three-year run of A-listers starring in box-office embarrassments with the most politically correct villain of them all: Americans in the Middle East? Define these films any way you want, I define them as loss-leaders to put Democrats in office. 

Money-driven industries don’t keep making Edsels and ignore the Mustang.

Filmmakers and producers with access to Box Office Mojo know that whether politically “correct” or “incorrect,” who the villain is has nothing to do with box office. “Torino” and “Taken” were monster hits because they’re both extremely satisfying films. If there’s a single quality that made them successful that bucks the current Leftist Hollywood agenda, it’s their lack of moral equivalence. Both are straightforward good versus evil stories with a protagonist willing to sacrifice everything for something bigger than himself.

Because the human condition knows no boundaries, it’s old-fashioned heroism international audiences crave, not “safe, politically correct” villains.

“Basterds” only proves this point. “Politically correct, safe” Nazis are not what’s drawing audiences but rather the vicarious pleasure of watching something Hollywood doesn’t give us enough of: the delicious spectacle of evil receiving a reckoning at the hands of American good guys.

Both “G.I. Joe” and “Superman Returns” are all-kinds of politically correct. Neither, however, is likely to break even for years to come. “Spider-Man,” “Iron Man,” “The Dark Knight” and “300″ are a diverse mix of villains but pretty straight-forward in the good versus evil department … and all are monster hits.

Here are two other major areas of disagreement:

With the current economy, filmmakers don’t want to risk losing any potential audience.  Even when ticket sales are up, filmmakers may not want to pick sides on an issue. 

The decisions surrounding “G.I. Joe” and “Basterds” and so many politically correct others had nothing to do with the economy. They were in the works long before the recession hit. But this idea that directors keep their politics ambiguous and “not pick sides on an issue” disregards a never-ending avalanche of anti-Iraq, anti-Bush, pro-Leftist films that never stop flopping.

Hollywood doesn’t always like a clear line between good and evil, so in order to lock a distributor, a director might keep his or her politics ambiguous (especially if those politics are right of center).

On the left, I would say this is the exact opposite of what’s happening. Over the past ten years directors have become less and less politically ambiguous, and I would argue, increasingly strident with their on-screen agendas. This is why the adult drama is all but dead today. The agenda turns off a mainstream audience tired of paying ten bucks to be insulted and in turn no longer trusts Hollywood with anything other than tentpoles. Liberal audiences stay away because political stridency makes for bad filmmaking.

On the right, sympathies hidden and made ambiguous in fantasy films like “300″ and “The Dark Knight” have nothing to do with anything other than an intolerant film and media industry poised to pounce. The personal attacks leveled against a pre-drunk driving Mel Gibson before anyone had seen “The Passion,” and David Zucker and Jon Voight make clear that there’s a heavy price to pay for political apostates.

It comes down to this Gutfeld quote from the Yogerst piece:

“It is distasteful to consider a battle between good and evil if it’s happening now, because then you have to choose sides.”

For my money, mainstream Hollywood has chosen sides, and not ours. And that choice has nothing to do wanting to “appeal to the broadest audience possible.”

It’s not the economy stupid, it’s the agenda.