Counterculture Con HQ

December 31, 2009


Nobody is hated more than an apostate to the Faith.  Someone who turns their back on his old way of thinking and walks away.  Because nobody has a keener insight on the inner workings of the machine against which they have turned, and few are more effective spokespersons against it.  That is what makes an apostate so dangerous, and so hated.

If you’ve ever wondered why the Left singles out conservative women and minorities for such ferocious attack, it’s because they too are considered a type of apostate from the Liberal faith that claims to represent them.  Women and people of color of this type are feared and despised by the Left because they threaten the Left’s monopoloy on this demographic, without which they would cease to exist as a political force.  Without this solid monopoly, particularly of people of color, the Left goes the way of the Dodo.  So they guard it jealously.  As a person of color, and an ex-Liberal, I am the Left’s worst nightmare.  I am an apostate twice over.  Personally, I can’t tell you how delightful it is to be able to say the things on my mind without fear of some insipid white Liberal telling me what speech codes I’ve just violated or thought crimes I’ve committed.  Because as a “person of color,” I am not afflicted by that disease known as “white guilt.”  It’s why the Left hates folks like me so much.  They can’t control me because I am immune to the virus of white guilt that so many of you are infected with–that mental virus they use to control you.

David Horowitz, a former communist, and Pat Caddell, whom I still consider an old school Democrat, are also despised by the far Left as apostates; here spilling the beans on the inside workings of the machine:

Thank You: Vlad Tepes

December 30, 2009

White Guilt Meets the Chinese Century

Just Words. Woman at Obama's Copenhagen speech.

It’s no secret the global warming conference in Copenhagen was a failure.  When historians look back for the beginning of the end of the global warmist movement, they’ll look here first.   But the failure in Copenhagen is also a marker of other things to come. Fisk this one with me.


Copenhagen was a disaster. That much is agreed. But the truth about what actually happened is in danger of being lost amid the spin and inevitable mutual recriminations. The truth is this: China wrecked the talks, intentionally humiliated Barack Obama, and insisted on an awful “deal” so western leaders would walk away carrying the blame. How do I know this? Because I was in the room and saw it happen.

While Hugo Chavez is still blaming Copenhagen’s failure on Barack Obama, this courageous environmental reporter dares to step outside the same tired blame-the-West box.

China’s strategy was simple: block the open negotiations for two weeks, and then ensure that the closed-door deal made it look as if the west had failed the world’s poor once again. And sure enough, the aid agencies, civil society movements and environmental groups all took the bait. The failure was “the inevitable result of rich countries refusing adequately and fairly to shoulder their overwhelming responsibility”, said Christian Aid. “Rich countries have bullied developing nations,” fumed Friends of the Earth International.

All very predictable, but the complete opposite of the truth. Even George Monbiot, writing in yesterday’s Guardian, made the mistake of singly blaming Obama. But I saw Obama fighting desperately to salvage a deal, and the Chinese delegate saying “no”, over and over again. Monbiot even approvingly quoted the Sudanese delegate Lumumba Di-Aping, who denounced the Copenhagen accord as “a suicide pact, an incineration pact, in order to maintain the economic dominance of a few countries”.

This environmental reporter, who I have no doubt whatsoever is a secular progressive, calls out the reflexive, anti-West and blame-America-first mantras spouted here by global warmist in chief, George Monbiot.  He even calls these mantras “predictable.”

Sudan behaves at the talks as a puppet of China; one of a number of countries that relieves the Chinese delegation of having to fight its battles in open sessions. It was a perfect stitch-up. China gutted the deal behind the scenes, and then left its proxies to savage it in public.

This is the kind of language the secular progressives have always reserved for the U.S., and maybe Israel; now being applied to a “developing countries,” China and Sudan.

What I saw was profoundly shocking. The Chinese premier, Wen Jinbao, did not deign to attend the meetings personally, instead sending a second-tier official in the country’s foreign ministry to sit opposite Obama himself. The diplomatic snub was obvious and brutal, as was the practical implication: several times during the session, the world’s most powerful heads of state were forced to wait around as the Chinese delegate went off to make telephone calls to his “superiors”.

President Obama, “the Won”, punked by a lowly Chinese bureaucrat.  Clearly a “come to Jesus” moment for this secular progressive journalist.  But wait, it gets better.

To those who would blame Obama and rich countries in general, know this: it was China’s representative who insisted that industrialised country targets, previously agreed as an 80% cut by 2050, be taken out of the deal. “Why can’t we even mention our own targets?” demanded a furious Angela Merkel. Australia’s prime minister, Kevin Rudd, was annoyed enough to bang his microphone. Brazil’s representative too pointed out the illogicality of China’s position. Why should rich countries not announce even this unilateral cut? The Chinese delegate said no, and I watched, aghast, as Merkel threw up her hands in despair and conceded the point. Now we know why – because China bet, correctly, that Obama would get the blame for the Copenhagen accord’s lack of ambition.

Yes, China “bet correctly,” because China knows us better than we know ourselves.  They know how thoroughly reporters like this have poisoned the well against the U.S. and the West around the world, and how reflexive the anti-U.S., anti-West blame will be.  The secular progressives here finally reaping what they have sown.

China, backed at times by India, then proceeded to take out all the numbers that mattered. A 2020 peaking year in global emissions, essential to restrain temperatures to 2C, was removed and replaced by woolly language suggesting that emissions should peak “as soon as possible”. The long-term target, of global 50% cuts by 2050, was also excised. No one else, perhaps with the exceptions of India and Saudi Arabia, wanted this to happen. I am certain that had the Chinese not been in the room, we would have left Copenhagen with a deal that had environmentalists popping champagne corks popping in every corner of the world.

So how did China manage to pull off this coup? First, it was in an extremely strong negotiating position. China didn’t need a deal. As one developing country foreign minister said to me: “The Athenians had nothing to offer to the Spartans.” On the other hand, western leaders in particular – but also presidents Lula of Brazil, Zuma of South Africa, Calderón of Mexico and many others – were desperate for a positive outcome. Obama needed a strong deal perhaps more than anyone. The US had confirmed the offer of $100bn to developing countries for adaptation, put serious cuts on the table for the first time (17% below 2005 levels by 2020), and was obviously prepared to up its offer.

In other words, the end of the American Century the secular progressives have so craved for isn’t quite living up to its billing.  Leftist utopia not yet ready to spring up from the ashes of American decline.

Above all, Obama needed to be able to demonstrate to the Senate that he could deliver China in any global climate regulation framework, so conservative senators could not argue that US carbon cuts would further advantage Chinese industry. With midterm elections looming, Obama and his staff also knew that Copenhagen would be probably their only opportunity to go to climate change talks with a strong mandate. This further strengthened China’s negotiating hand, as did the complete lack of civil society political pressure on either China or India. Campaign groups never blame developing countries for failure; this is an iron rule that is never broken. The Indians, in particular, have become past masters at co-opting the language of equity (“equal rights to the atmosphere”) in the service of planetary suicide – and leftish campaigners and commentators are hoist with their own petard.

The folly of White Guilt on full display.  What to do!  The Leftist morality by skin color and anti-Westernism rendered a 20th century anachronism.

With the deal gutted, the heads of state session concluded with a final battle as the Chinese delegate insisted on removing the 1.5C target so beloved of the small island states and low-lying nations who have most to lose from rising seas. President Nasheed of the Maldives, supported by Brown, fought valiantly to save this crucial number. “How can you ask my country to go extinct?” demanded Nasheed. The Chinese delegate feigned great offence – and the number stayed, but surrounded by language which makes it all but meaningless. The deed was done.

All this raises the question: what is China’s game? Why did China, in the words of a UK-based analyst who also spent hours in heads of state meetings, “not only reject targets for itself, but also refuse to allow any other country to take on binding targets?” The analyst, who has attended climate conferences for more than 15 years, concludes that China wants to weaken the climate regulation regime now “in order to avoid the risk that it might be called on to be more ambitious in a few years’ time”.

This does not mean China is not serious about global warming. It is strong in both the wind and solar industries. But China’s growth, and growing global political and economic dominance, is based largely on cheap coal. China knows it is becoming an uncontested superpower; indeed its newfound muscular confidence was on striking display in Copenhagen. Its coal-based economy doubles every decade, and its power increases commensurately. Its leadership will not alter this magic formula unless they absolutely have to.

Copenhagen was much worse than just another bad deal, because it illustrated a profound shift in global geopolitics. This is fast becoming China’s century, yet its leadership has displayed that multilateral environmental governance is not only not a priority, but is viewed as a hindrance to the new superpower’s freedom of action. I left Copenhagen more despondent than I have felt in a long time. After all the hope and all the hype, the mobilisation of thousands, a wave of optimism crashed against the rock of global power politics, fell back, and drained away.

White Guilt meets the Chinese Century, with Copenhagen the first casualty.  The anti-American, anti-West, anti-white far Left caught completely flatfooted in Copenhagen by their fossilized worldview; still spouting their tired tropes and memes, unable even to grasp who has just laid the pipe on them.

The American Century is over.  The obits are gleefully being written as we speak.  It’s what they wanted, right?  The Left has been yearning for this day for the last 60 years, convinced that the U.S. was the locus of evil on Earth, the last obstacle to whirled peas.  But be careful what you wish for, gentle readers, because as the U.S. exits the scene stage left, another player will step in to fill its shoes.  They thought unchecked U.S. power was bad?  Now contemplate a global hegemon without the judeochristian moral checks and five times the population, and acting in its own unenlightened self-interests the way the U.S. was accused of doing.  You haven’t seen nothing yet.  Tibet, Taiwan, the Uighurs, non-existent human rights, and general totalitarian control over everything they touch; that is just a hint of how the chicoms will manage their century.  That’s how they do business.

The Left has always had a say so in the U.S. and the Western democracies because of our democratic process and liberal (small “l”) ideals.  Because of their lock on the media, entertainment and academia, they have always had a captive audience.  In the New Century, the Chinese will not be so forthcoming.  Nor does the Western Left have anything to say that the Chinese are interested in hearing.  In the Chinese Century the Left will be an anachronism of the past.

The Fascinating “Other”

Filed under: Iran, Islam — Tags: — Jesusland @ 09:15

Rick Steves pulls the Islamic iron curtain back slightly for a look at the people of Iran, many if not most of whom have chafed under the mullahcratic rule.

More where this came from here.

When the mullahs fall, this is the Iran we will seek to welcome back to the fold.  We treasure our own Western civilization, and have become a wee bit attached to what we used to call Christendom.  But we must emphasize, gentle readers, we do not hate the people of Iran, nor do we even hate a peaceful and moderate Islam necessarily.

H/T: paleocon

Area Man: Obama Greater Than Jesus!

Filed under: Culture, Obama, Religion — Tags: — Jesusland @ 07:15

Parody or real? Hard to tell.

It’s not for nothing that we call Barack Obama the “Obamessiah;” after all, there’s at least a grain of truth to every caricature.  To which his supporters usually respond with something resembling indignation or outrage.  Like this:

From the start, Obama’s critics have claimed that his supporters have idolised him as a saviour, thus attempting to dismantle the concrete hope that Obama has represented for most Americans.

But then, hilariously, he proceeds to beclown himself as his indignation gives way slowly, inevitably, to precisely the messiah worship we find so amusing:

The idea was naturally that the comparison between Jesus and Obama – which is something that the critics developed themselves – would be comical, blasphemous, or both.

If such a comparison were to be made, it would, of course, inevitably be to Obama’s advantage.

Today, his historic Health Reform is being passed through the American Senate – a welfare policy breakthrough that several of his predecessors have been unable to manage.

Despite all the compromises, it has finally been possible to ensure something so fundamental, as the right of every American not to be financially shipwrecked when their health fails them. Add to that the biggest ever financial support package in America’s history, a major disarmament agreement and the quickest-ever re-establishment of American reputation.

On the other hand, we have Jesus’ miracles that everyone still remembers, but which only benefitted a few. At the same time, we have the wonderful parables about his life and deeds that we know from the New Testament, but which have been interpreted so differently over the past 2000 years that it is impossible to give an unequivocal result of his work.

Obama is, of course, greater than Jesus – if we have to play that absurd Christmas game. But it is probably more meaningful to insist that with today’s domestic triumph, that he has already assured himself a place in the history books – a space he has good chances of expanding considerably in coming years.

Without, however, ever attaining the heavens….


Good for a chuckle.  Some levity with your morning coffee.

But on a more serious note, when secular progressives say if God didn’t exist, we’d create him (implying, of course, that we did precisely that); could they be onto something, gentle readers?

Mullahs Packing Their Bags?

Barack denounced them late, but he denounced them.  The die is cast, his “unclenched hand” has been withdrawn.  Does he know something we don’t?

Reports from Iran indicate that the Supreme National Security Council has ordered a complete check-up of the jet which is on standby to fly Ayatollah Sayyid Ali Khamenei and his family to Russia should the situation in Iran spiral out of control. The order, to the Pasdaran Revolutionary Guard Corps, was dated on Sunday, 27 December. A fax containing the order was sent to Dutch-based Shahrzad News.

In Iran, tens of thousands of pro-government supporters took to the streets on Tuesday, calling for leaders of the opposition to be punished. They say the opposition is to blame for the protests during the Shiite festival of Ashura in which eight people are reported to have been killed by riot police.

Opposition supporters launched the demonstrations following the death of Ayatollah Hossein Ali Montazeri a critic of President Mahmoud Ahmadinejad. The protests were crushed by the authorities and the opposition is now calling for the government to apologise for the excessive violence used by the police.

President Ahmadinejad says the United States, Great Britain and Israel are behind the protests. The British ambassador in Tehran has been summoned by the Iranian authorities. The Revolutionary Guard says the foreign media and Iran’s enemies are waging a psychological war aimed at bringing down the legitimate Iranian government.

Some Iranian MPs are calling for demonstrators to be sentenced to death. Various opposition figures have been arrested including the sister of Nobel peace prize laureate Schirin Ebadi.

From Sheherezad News.

But if the regime falls, they will take as many with them as they can.  Warning.  Graphic

UPDATE: One of the victims identified.  Recall they took the extra time to back the truck up and run him over again.

Shahrokh Rahmani

H/T for the update: Jawa

December 29, 2009

Where’s the Love?

Hugo Chavez: hard to please.

Why do Liberals crave so much to be loved by thugs the likes of Chavez?  And the mullahs?  I have a recurring picture of that emotionally neglected woman crawling after her abusive husband crying “love me!”  Such advances are almost always met with contempt.


“Let’s not kid ourselves: the Obama illusion has finished, and the shameless interventionism of the American administration shows that,” wrote Chavez.

Having opposed the Copenhagen climate change summit’s final agreement as a behind-doors deal between major powers that ignored nations on the margins, Chavez said rich nations were making a mockery of U.N. principles of equality.

“Those leaving us on the verge of an unimaginable ‘ecocide,’ those who caused climate change, should be forced to accept their responsibilities,” he said.

Where’s the love, Hugo Chavez? Sure, he hasn’t lifted the embargo on Cuba, and couldn’t deliver the free goodies at Copenhagen, and his Nobel Peace Prize was essentially returned unopened.  But he is a president, after all, not an emperor.  And China calls its own shots.  Does he really deserve this?:


Chavez, who was not included on the original list of speakers for the final day of the summit, ended the proceedings with bitter references to the Peace Prize-winning Obama as the “Nobel Prize of War.”

The Nobel Prize of War just finished saying here that he is here to act. Well, show it sir. Don’t leave by the back door,” he said.

Three years after Chavez likened Bush to the devil during a speech at the United Nations General Assembly in New York, the socialist strongman tore into Obama, claiming Friday that “it still smells like sulfur in the world.”

The rest here.

Wasn’t it enough that President Obama refused Chavez’s nemesis, Colombia, MFN trade status?  Did President Obama not get any props at all for denouncing Honduras for ousting the Chavez puppet, Manuel Zelaya in that entirely legal “military coup”, and then proceed to impose punishing sanctions on that poverty-stricken country?  They shook hands, they exchanged gifts.  What more does Chavez want?  I have little affection for these Third World blowhards and their premise that the World “owes them”.  I like even less the Liberal craving to be loved by these guys.  Because it is seen as weakness and does not serve our national interests.  President Obama has made his first impression, and you can’t ever take those back.

Islamic Terrorism: Tip of the Spear

The Christmas Day crotchbomber is Nigerian by birth, but the jihad he was smoking was his own homegrown.

The reports come after The Sun revealed that cops fear that 25 British-born Muslims are plotting to bomb Western airliners. It was there London-educated Abdulmutallab prepared for his Christmas Day bid to blow up a US jet.

The British extremists in Yemen are in their early 20s and from Bradford, Luton and Leytonstone, East London.  A Scotland Yard source said: “The great fear is Abdulmutallab is the first of many ready to attack planes and kill tens of thousands.

“We know there are four or five radicalised British Muslim cells in the Yemen.  It was there London-educated Abdulmutallab prepared for his Christmas Day bid to blow up a US jet.

The British extremists in Yemen are in their early 20s and from Bradford, Luton and Leytonstone, East London.  The 25 suspects, of Pakistani and Somali descent, were radicalised in UK mosques.

Welcome to Londonistan, home of radical Islam in the West.

We no longer have to travel to Afghanistan or Iraq to find Jihad.  The enemy is inside our gates now.  Home grown Jihad.  London, England has become the hub of radical Islam in the West thanks to, among other things, uncontrolled Islamic immigration and the Leftwing cult of tolerance for the intolerable in the name of “multiculturalism.”  The world is changing, gentle readers; and like the turning of the seasons, the signs are in the air.  There is so much in this next article it was all I could do not to highlight and bold the whole thing.

So here we go again. Another international Islamic terrorist plot — and yet another British connection.

Who can be surprised? After all, this is ‘ Londonistan’ — the contemptuous term coined by the French security service back in the Nineties as they watched Britain become the central hub of Islamic terrorism in Europe.

Radicals flocked to the UK, attracted by Britain’s toxic combination of criminally lax immigration controls, generous health, education and welfare benefits and the ability to perpetuate their views through the British veneration of the principle of free speech.

Despite 9/11, the 2005 London Tube and bus attacks and the dozens of other Islamist plots uncovered in Britain, the astounding fact is that Islamic extremist networks are still allowed to flourish in Britain, largely through the obsession of its governing class with multiculturalism and ‘human rights’.

Extremists are still slipping into the country. The courts are still refusing to deport terrorists in order to protect their ‘human rights’ abroad.

Not only is no action taken against extremist mosques and madrassas, but many British universities have been turned into terrorism recruitment centres.

Last year, a poll by the Centre for Social Cohesion found — horrifyingly — that almost one in every three Muslim students in the UK said that killing in the name of religion was justified, with one third also in favour of a worldwide Islamic caliphate, or empire, based on Islamic sharia law.

But it’s not just in the universities that Britain seems unable to recognise, let alone deal with, highly manipulative Muslim extremists. Astonishingly, similarly radical speakers are regularly invited into the very heart of the defence establishment, on courses teaching intelligence officials as well as soldiers and police officers about radical Islam.

The Government is funnelling money into extremist Islamist groups, and even employs Islamist radicals within government as advisers on — wait for it — ‘combating Islamic extremism’.

But what they fail to grasp is that ‘authentic’ Islam is currently dominated by a deeply politicised interpretation which promotes holy war to conquer ‘infidels’ and insufficiently pious Muslims.

And although many such Muslims abhor this and have nothing to do with violence or extremism, it is an interpretation backed up by Islamic theology and history and currently supported by the major religious authorities in the Islamic world.

That is what the government often ends up inadvertently funding — with catastrophic results. For when exposed to this, even many hitherto secular Muslims become radicalised.

And that means junking its current idiotic definition of an ‘extremist’ as merely someone who is committed to violence. It must outlaw instead the religious fanaticism that also threatens the British way of life.

So the Government should say that Muslims are welcome to live here on exactly the same basis as all other religious minorities – that they accept the principle of one law for all, and do nothing to threaten or undermine the prevailing culture.

That means an end to the increasing toleration of Islamic sharia law as the effective jurisdiction in Muslim areas, which so badly threatens in particular the safety and well-being of women, homosexuals and converts from the faith.

None of these things is currently being done. Instead, radical Islamism is being appeased on the grounds that Muslims must not feel targeted in any way.

Behold what the secular progressives have wrought. Please read it all. I beg of you.  In it you will find information valuable to our insurgency.    It pains me to say this, gentle readers, but the homegrown terrorism we are witnessing is just the beginning.  It is merely the tip of the spear of a larger war that is looming on the horizon.   Terrorism is not a “crime” or a “man-caused disaster.”  It is a form of asymetrical warfare used by an enemy when he is either weak, or inferior in numbers.   In two generations, according to the demographers, Islam within the West will no longer be weak or inferior in numbers.  In 40-50 years it will be the majority religion in Western Europe. It’s not looking good for Canada either at the rate they’re going.  And the U.S. is barely holding its own against this islamic tide, thanks in part to illegal immigration from Latin America.  It pains me to say this, gentle readers, but CCHQ sees ethnic war coming to the West that makes these incidents of terror look like the proverbial Sunday picnic.  Picture something like Beirut in the 1970s, writ large.  Or the Balkans in the early 90s.  You may not live to see it, but your children will.  Unless there are radical changes in the way we do business, that is CCHQ’s forecast.

December 28, 2009

Terrorism and Man-Caused Disasters

Man-caused disasters are what we used to call “terrorism” when George Bush was president.  Today this is all it takes to cause one of those disasters:

[livevideo id=B9BF2E8594CD4C89AA35D3DF3F53302F]

On Christmas day, Northwest Airlines Flight 253 dodged a bullet.

Meanwhile, famous Liberal blogger Matthew Yglesias is pretty sure it’s all just a big scare tactic.

Not So Scary “Terror”

Obviously, people shouldn’t be lighting anything on fire inside airplanes. That said, all the big Christmas airline incident really shows to me is how little punch our dread terrorist adversaries really pack. Once again, this seems like a pretty unserious plot. And even if you did manage to blow up an airplane in mid-air, that would be both a very serious crime and a great tragedy, but hardly a first-order national security threat.

And then there’s Peter King:

“This was the real deal,” said Representative Peter T. King of New York, the ranking Republican on the House Homeland Security Committee, who was briefed on the incident and said something had gone wrong with the explosive device, which he described as somewhat sophisticated. “This could have been devastating,” Mr. King said.

Ultimately, it does no favors to anyone to blow this sort of thing out of proportion. The United States could not, of course, be “devastated” by anything resembling this scheme. We ought to be clear on that fact. We want to send the message around the world that this sort of vile attempt to slaughter innocent people is not, at the end of the day, anything resembling a serious challenge to American power. It’s attempted murder, it’s wrong, we should try to stop it, but it’s really not much more than that.

That’s Matthew Yglesias, Liberal blogger extraordinaire.  Note the contortions he makes to dismiss the threat of “terror”, in quotes of course, because it’s not real according to him.  As if the threat of terrorism should be assessed in relation to threats to “American power”.   And not in terms of the real purpose behind terrorism which is to instill fear, which would end up shutting down our transport system and wreaking havoc on our economy beyond just a blown up a plane.  People losing jobs, defaulting on mortages, families uprooted, economic misery.  What about the simple emboldening of our enemies?  Or 250 dead people on that plane.

I’m pretty sure I always understood why guys like him always minimized the threat of terrorism during the Bush years.  It was political.  Terrorism as an issue lent itself to Bush’s strengths.  Or so they believed.  So they pretended it wasn’t real.  A manufactured threat.  Yet Bush is gone and the threat continues.  And although minimizing the threat of terrorism for the sake of politics was despicable and reprehensible to me, it did make sense.  There was a twisted logic to it.  But it belongs to Obama now.  So what gives with these guys?  Why the continuing charade?

CCHQ will tell you what gives, as we are experts on how these guys think.  Although I have never heard Yglesias express an opinion on Afghanistan, I can tell you with 100% assuredness that he’s against Obama’s surge in Afghanistan.  There is a faction on the Left, to which Yglesias belongs, that wants us out now.  Terrorist incidents like these blunt his arguments because he believes our policy in Afghanistan is based on fear.  They don’t agree with the war on terror, so they have to deny the reality of terrorism, our source of fear.  It’s what they’ve been doing since 9/11 to one degree or another.  They want the world to be one way–their way–but reality simply refuses to oblige them.  So planes blowing up in the skies, for example, aren’t terrorism; they’re “terror”, with the scare quotes as mockery, or “man-caused disasters”, or “attempted murder”, or crimes, etc.  Anything but calling it what it actually is–terrorism.

Guys like Matthew Yglesias like to claim “reality has a Liberal bias.”  They claim membership in the “reality-based community.”  These laugh lines are a running joke in their circles.  But reality most decidedly does not have a Liberal bias, gentle readers.  Because if it did, they wouldn’t have to engage in these word games and mental contortions in order to make a round world fit in their square holes, and Obama wouldn’t be in Iraq and Afghanistan.  They see the world as they wish it were.  But the reality of terrorism in the age of Obama should dispel them of that delusion.

Where Did All the Protestors Go?

The war in Iraq rolls on, and is escalating in Afghanistan.  And I’ve been wondering for quite some time now, where the heck did all the anti-war protestors go?  It seems we’ve found them.  Or at least one of them.


Looking back at the aughts, who can forget indelible images of a war and a president that should never have been, and the makeshift camp set up outside President George W. Bush’s Texas ranch at Crawford Texas that challenged them both.

Energizer Bunny war protester Cindy Sheehan, who last year ran for Nancy Pelosi’s San Francisco congressional seat, plans to set up a new anti-war camp near the Washington Monument to protest ongoing conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan.

She then rode a wave of fame to become the country’s most prominent war protester. In 2008 Sheehan campaigned to unseat Nancy Pelosi. The House of Representatives Speaker had not moved to impeach President Bush, Sheehan said.

Now she’s announced she will establish a Washington D.C. based tent village like the one she built at Crawford.

Angered by President Barack Obama’s war-justifying Nobel Prize acceptance speech, Sheehan said she will re-establish Camp Casey near the Washington Monument, setting up tents, and demanding that her anti-war message be heard.

“At first I believed that the Republicans were the war party, but it became increasingly clear to me that it doesn’t matter what party a president is — the policies of war continue on,” Sheehan told the Fort Worth Star Telegram, for a Dec. 20 story. “He should devise a plan for troop withdrawal that is as speedy as safely possible and combine economic growth and democracy building in our occupied countries with a speedy withdrawal. No occupations will save billions of dollars a month and maybe our economy could start to improve, too.”

She’s back. But I guess after President Obama’s churchillian acceptance speech in Oslo, you can hardly blame her.  Just as I had begun to suspect there wasn’t an honest war protestor left on this earth, my faith in humanity fading fast, along comes Cindy Sheehan to turn President Obama’s life into a living hell.  Faith restored.  Flashbacks of Crawford, TX, gentle readers?  Not likely.

Cindy Sheehan is a master of the image creation game.  She’s a natural.  Remember these?

A picture of grief


But staging reality takes two to tango.  It requires a willing participant in the mainstream media.  A partnership if you will.  Are we going to see the MSM renew their relationship with Sheehan now that her target is President Obama, instead of Bush?  I wouldn’t bet on it.  Recall how the Democrats dropped Cindy Sheehan like a stone when she turned on Hillary.  Or to be more precise, Sheehan dropped the Dems; which is when the media decided she wasn’t a story anymore.  Her services were no longer required.  Contract revoked.  She lost her L.A. privileges.  I expect after a brief mention just for the sake of appearances, perhaps by NPR, Cindy Sheehan’s new “Camp Casey” on the Potomac will be tossed down the memory hole along with all the other inconvenient stories the MSM doesn’t feel inclined to push.  So I think Obama will be just fine.  And at least for the sake of the war, CCHQ is ok with that.

December 27, 2009

Big Oil Not So Big

Remember all that Iraqi oil Bush was accused of destroying the Twin Towers over?  Remember how we invaded Iraq to steal all the oil and make slaves of the Iraqi people?  Apparently those wrecked towers, and all that American blood and treasure got the “Big Oil” puppetmasters nothing.

U.S. Companies Shut Out as Iraq Auctions Its Oil Fields

Those who claim that the U.S. invaded Iraq in 2003 to get control of the country’s giant oil reserves will be left scratching their heads by the results of last weekend’s auction of Iraqi oil contracts: Not a single U.S. company secured a deal in the auction of contracts that will shape the Iraqi oil industry for the next couple of decades. Two of the most lucrative of the multi-billion-dollar oil contracts went to two countries which bitterly opposed the U.S. invasion – Russia and China – while even Total Oil of France, which led the charge to deny international approval for the war at the U.N. Security Council in 2003, won a bigger stake than the Americans in the most recent auction. “[The distribution of oil contracts] certainly answers the theory that the war was for the benefit of big U.S. oil interests,” says Alex Munton, Middle East oil analyst for the energy consultancy Wood Mackenzie, whose clients include major U.S. companies. “That has not been demonstrated by what has happened this week.”

In one of the biggest auctions held anywhere in the 150-year history of the oil industry, executives from across the world flew into Baghdad on Dec. 11 for a two-day, red-carpet ceremony at the Oil Ministry, broadcast live in Iraq. With U.S. military helicopters hovering overhead to help ward off a possible insurgent attack, Oil Minister Hussein Al-Shahrastani unsealed envelopes from each company, stating how much oil it would produce, and what it was willing to accept in payment from Iraq’s government. Rather than giving foreign oil companies control over Iraqi reserves, as the U.S. had hoped to do with the Oil Law it failed to get the Iraqi parliament to pass, the oil companies were awarded service contracts lasting 20 years for seven of the 10 oil fields on offer – the oil will remain the property of the Iraqi state, and the foreign companies will pump it for a fixed price per barrel.

Far from behaving like the war-ravaged, bankrupt country that it is, Iraq heavily weighted the contracts in its own favor, demanding a low per-barrel price and signing bonuses of up to $150 million. Only one U.S. company, Occidental Petroleum Corp., joined the bidding last weekend, and lost. (ExxonMobil had hoped to land the lucrative Rumaila field, but lost out to an alliance between the Chinese National Petroleum Company and BP because it declined the Iraqi government’s $2-a-barrel fee.)

That might have been the thinking of U.S. oil giants, which largely stayed away from last week’s bidding, and which have failed to negotiate oil deals with Iraq’s government outside of the public auction process. Iraqi officials say they are not awarding contracts based on political considerations, but simply a straight comparison of prices and production targets. “The bidding was extremely tough,” said one official in Baghdad, in an email. “My guess is that [the U.S. companies] could not match the offers from others.” In Iraq, at least, the victor has no special claim on the spoils of war.

So “big oil” isn’t so big after all. Not that I care which oil companies secure the contracts, as the oil ends up on the same global market anyway.  This is only noteworthy because it puts to rest the college dormroom level attacks on Bush and the Iraq war we’ve all had to endure for the last 8 years.  Because this proves Iraq is a sovereign country.  It’s as free as any country the Middle East has ever been.  And it’s free and sovereign, not because of the likes of Code Pink, Cindy Sheehan, Harry Reid, et al.  Far from it.  Everything they wished for Iraq would have guaranteed chaos and neverending civil war.  All because of their hatred of Bush.  That cowboy.  That moron.  The guy who liberated more Iraqis than a thousand Amnesty Internationals writing a thousand letters a day for a thousand years could ever hope to liberate.  That’s why Iraq is free today.  The guy who stuck to his guns, while the war’s detractors vanished into thin air the minute Barack Obama was elected to office; their position on Iraq not so principled as we’d been led to believe.  And had they succeeded in driving Bush out of Iraq, they would have made themselves equally as scarce as that country descended into genocidal anarchy.  But where did all those war protesters go anyway?  I see them pop up occassionally in the comments sections across the internet, but the streets are clean of them.  Were they against the war, or were they against Bush?  Methinks CCHQ will have to devote some time in the future to that question.  In the 70s, anti Vietnam war protests also mysteriously vanished when the draft was abolished.  Apparently it was the draft they were against, not the war.  And if the Left thinks Iraq exercising its sovereignty is Obama’s doing, they simply aren’t aware that Iraq was giving away oil contracts to non-U.S. companies long before Obama was even a twinkle in their eye.  Not a single U.S. oil company won a contract to extract Iraqi oil.  I am all for America acting in its own enlightened self-interest and reaping the benefits.  But this is also something to be proud of.  We aren’t stealing their oil, or telling them how to run their business.  Iraq is a free and sovereign country.  That is all the vindication you need, gentle readers.  You were right, they were wrong.

H/T: Worth Reading

It’s Official: Atheism a Religion Too

The State of Illinois has all but declared atheism a religion.  For why else would they give atheists a place alongside other religions in a holiday display at the state capitol?

The sign reads: “At the time of the winter solstice, let reason prevail. There are no gods, no devils, no angels, no heaven or hell. There is only our natural world. Religion is just myth and superstition that hardens hearts and enslaves minds.”

The Madison, Wis.-based Freedom from Religion Foundation has placed the sign in several state Capitol buildings across the country.

As to Kelly’s claims that the sign mocks religion, foundation co-President Dan Barker said: “He’s kind of right, because the last couple of sentences do criticize religion, and of course, the beginning is a celebration of the winter solstice. But that kind of speech is protected as well – speech that is critical and speech that is supportive.”

We atheists believe that the nativity scene is mocking humanity,” by suggesting that those who do not believe in Jesus will go to hell, Barker said. “But notice that we are not defacing or stealing nativity scenes because we disagree with their speech.”

This is the second year the Freedom from Religion sign has been at the Illinois State Capitol.

Haupt said in addition to the sign, the Nativity Scene and the Christmas tree, there is also a Soldiers’ Angels wreath, and a tabletop display from the American Civil Liberties Union that says the group “defends freedom of religion.” A Hanukkah menorah had also been on display until the Jewish Festival of Lights ended on Saturday.

For the second year in a row, the Capitol also has an aluminum Festivus pole commemorating the fictional holiday created in “Seinfeld.”

More atheist tomfoolery here. Atheism is reduced to mocking and attacking religion generally, and christianity specifically, because apparently it has nothing positive to promote about itself.  When it comes to Atheism, we at CCHQ demand separation of church and state.

December 26, 2009

Hope, Change, Bupkis

Does it ever seem to you there is more terrorism today than under Bush?  President Obama’s “open hand” policy to Middle East dictators, and the muslim world in general, was supposed to stand in sharp contrast to Bush’s antagonism and cowboy antics.  Delivering bupkis so far in that regard though.  From radical Islam, a Christmas present to you:

ROMULUS, Mich. – An attempted terrorist attack on a Christmas Day flight began with a pop and a puff of smoke — sending passengers scrambling to subdue a Nigerian man who claimed to be acting on orders from al-Qaida to blow up the airliner, officials and travelers said.

Merry insanity here. Al-Qaida is suspected.  And it’s still early, but nothing yet on whether he was suffering from “mental illness.”  It is being reported, however, that the terrorist was on a watch list but that it was ignored. We’ll want to get to the bottom of that one too.

Well, if it does seem that way to you–that there is more terrorism now than before–that’s because there are more incidents of terrorism under the Healer in Chief than under Bush.

WASHINGTON — Targeted by drone strikes in Pakistan, Al Qaeda is losing ground and financing even as attacks by Islamist groups are on the rise, according to a report obtained by The Associated Press.

Attacks on civilian targets in Afghanistan by militant Islamic groups are on track to increase by 15-20 percent this year over last year’s totals, said the report by the American Security Project, a bipartisan Washington-based organization.

According to the report, Islamist groups carried out 671 attacks worldwide in 2008. That number is on pace to shoot up by nearly 50 percent and surpass 1,000 for 2009.

More here.

But just as the perception shapers in the liberal media no longer count our dead GIs on a daily basis under President Obama as they did under Bush, he won’t be blamed for the spike in terrorism either, as was our previous president.  What a difference an election makes, huh gentle readers?

UPDATE: Al-Qaida “not a threat” according to chairman of the Defense Appropriations Subcommittee, Congressman John Murtha (D).

December 24, 2009

His Amazing Grace

Filed under: Religion — Tags: — Jesusland @ 22:45

Wretch redeemed, John Newton

The story of one of the most beloved hymns in all of Christendom is one of redemption.  From slave trader to born again christian, “Amazing Grace” and the wretched sinner who composed it, John Newton.

Although he had had some early religious instruction from his mother, who had died when he was a child, he had long since given up any religious convictions. However, on a homeward voyage, while he was attempting to steer the ship through a violent storm, he experienced what he was to refer to later as his “great deliverance.” He recorded in his journal that when all seemed lost and the ship would surely sink, he exclaimed, “Lord, have mercy upon us.” Later in his cabin he reflected on what he had said and began to believe that God had addressed him through the storm and that grace had begun to work for him.

His story here. So if you’re having a particularly silent night:

Merry Christmas and happy holidays to all of you, gentle readers.

The Ten Suggestions – revisited

A preacher in England offers his novel take on the Eighth Commandment-thou shalt not steal.

Delivering his festive lesson, Father Jones told the congregation: ‘My advice, as a Christian priest, is to shoplift. I do not offer such advice because I think that stealing is a good thing, or because I think it is harmless, for it is neither.

‘I would ask that they do not steal from small family businesses, but from large national businesses, knowing that the costs are ultimately passed on to the rest of us in the form of higher prices.

‘I would ask them not to take any more than they need, for any longer than they need.

‘I offer the advice with a heavy heart and wish society would recognise that bureaucratic ineptitude and systematic delay has created an invitation and incentive to crime for people struggling to cope.’

And the kicker,

The married father-of-two [priest] insisted his unusual advice did not break the Bible commandment ‘Thou shalt not steal’ – because God’s love for the poor outweighs his love for the rich.

Catch that?  I call that last one the marxist “tell.”  Poor=good, Rich=bad.  Here delivered as God loving the poor over the rich.  Which is not biblical.  I grew up in the Third World.  I’ve seen poverty.  Not the-poor-are-overweight variety of poverty we are familiar with here in the West.  I’m talking the fly-infested skeletal child, the cardboard shacks, the open sewers, and literal starvation, Sally Struthers variety of poverty.  I wouldn’t pretend to judge or moralize over someone driven by that kind of desperation to take morality into their own hands.  I haven’t walked in those shoes myself, and I’ve been tempted by far, far less.  But have we really descended to the level of poverty and desperation as a society that would justify theft to the extent it should be taught from the pulpits?  Are the poor more desperate now than when God’s law was handed down to us?  Or is this good priest’s advice more a reflection of what’s going on inside our churches ideologically.

More here.

Hat tip: Jawa

UPDATE: America’s Young Theologian quotes Thomas Aquinas in defense of the good priest above:

Nevertheless, if the need be so manifest and urgent, that it is evident that the present need must be remedied by whatever means be at hand…then it is lawful for a man to sustain his own need by means of another’s property, by taking it either openly or secretly: nor is this properly speaking theft or robbery.

I would agree with Thomas Aquinas.  Survival trumps all.  And if a man should be so driven to steal, he would find no condemnation from me.  But I’m willing to bet Aquinas never had a burger thrown back in his face by a “starving” panhandler because he only takes cash.  So while in theory I’m 100% onboard with Aquinas, on a practical level I’m pretty convinced the good priest mentioned above was merely grandstanding to make a larger point.  That larger point probably having to do with “structural justice”, or something along those lines.  And that’s fine.  Honest.  But the way he went about it was ridiculous.

UPDATE: further guidance on Thomas Aquinas in the comments.

December 23, 2009

Lookie Here…

It seems as gun ownership has gone up, crime has gone down.  Even during 3 years of recession.  The exact opposite of what gun control activists keep telling us should happen.  Go figure.

After several years of crime rates holding relatively steady, the FBI is reporting that violent crimes – including gun crimes – dropped dramatically in the first six months of 2009, with murder down 10 percent across the US as a whole.

Concurrently, the FBI reports that gun sales – especially of assault-style rifles and handguns, two main targets of gun-control groups – are up at least 12 percent nationally since the election of President Obama, a dramatic run on guns prompted in part by so-far-unwarranted fears that Democrats in Congress and the White House will curtail gun rights and carve apart the Second Amendment.

More here.

It’s possible that with the constant news about off-the-chart gun sales and runs on ammo, criminals are thinking twice about their chosen career.  Regardless, gun control advocates have been thoroughly debunked.  Arm yourselves, gentle readers, because when seconds count, the police are only minutes away.  Not to mention it’s your duty as a freedom-loving American.

December 22, 2009

Reason #358 Why Never to Vote Democrat Again

And now a word from the “non-partisan” Rock The Vote:

Sometimes the lameness actually makes you feel embarrassed for them.

Another quick peak into the secular progressive mind, gentle readers. These are golden.

Imposing Their Morality

My best friend, Al Gore's worst enemy

The secular progressive Left means well.  They have all the best intentions.  We should give them that much credit, should we not, gentle readers?  Even though it’s a favor they are entirely unwilling to reciprocate.   But you know what they say about good intentions, right?  Something about paved roads and hell, etc., if I recall.

PARIS (AFP) – Man’s best friend could be one of the environment’s worst enemies, according to a new study which says the carbon pawprint of a pet dog is more than double that of a gas-guzzling sports utility vehicle.

“Owning a dog really is quite an extravagance, mainly because of the carbon footprint of meat,” Barrett said.

Cats have an eco-footprint of about 0.15 hectares, slightly less than driving a Volkswagen Golf for a year, while two hamsters equates to a plasma television and even the humble goldfish burns energy equivalent to two mobile telephones.

And pets’ environmental impact is not limited to their carbon footprint, as cats and dogs devastate wildlife, spread disease and pollute waterways, the Vales say.

As with buying a car, humans are also encouraged to take the environmental impact of their future possession/companion into account.

“Rabbits are good, provided you eat them,” said Robert Vale.

The secular progressive movement, here wearing its radical environmentalist face, is one that requires control over every aspect of your life.  From your mode of transport, your diet, your lightbulbs, child rearing, pets, etc., to the politically correct words you use and thoughts you think.  The list is nigh endless.  Like Islam, it is total.  And that’s because your normal, human behaviour isn’t conducive to their dream of a Leftist Utopia.  This secular religion of the Left can only achieve the earthly paradise they seek through your external change in behaviour, and that external change is effectuated by compulsion of law (unlike christianity, whose road to paradise is purely voluntary and attained through inner change).   And they will compel you to make that change, make no mistake about it.  Just like Islam.  Because behind every law is the threat of force.  Their “morality” comes from the top down, and imposed on you by force of law–unlike the morality they falsely accuse you of “imposing” on them.

Freedom From Religion

In case you hadn’t noticed, gentle readers, when you talk publicly about your faith–heck even privately, but within earshot of a secular progressive–it makes them want to puke green.  Because when you talk about your faith publicly it’s like driving red hot pokers into their eardrums.  Like sprinkling holy water on the girl from the Exorcist.  It burns.  In case you hadn’t noticed, our secular progressive friends on the Left want you to kindly SHUT UP already.

A Christian teacher in England has lost her job after discussing her faith with a mother and her sick child and offering to pray for them.

After she was sacked, Olive Jones, 54, was told the family had strongly objected to her approach because they are non-believers, and that a formal complaint had been lodged about her reports the Telegraph.

As Mrs Jones only worked 12 hours a week and had no formal contract, her job with the North Somerset Tuition Service in Nailsea, near Bristol, ended with immediate effect.

“I told the girl and her mother that there were people praying for them, and I asked the child if I could pray for her. She looked at her mother, who said: ‘We come from a family who do not believe’ so I did not pray.”

Mrs Jones thought she left the family’s home on good terms but hours later was summoned to a meeting with her superiors.

“I had never experienced anything like this before. I had a faultless record stretching back 20 years.”

She was told the mother had complained that both she and her daughter were distressed by her testimony about miracles and her offer of saying a prayer and as a result they no longer wanted her as a tutor in their home.

In a meeting with her superiors Jones was told that her services were no longer required effective immediately.

Jones says she doesn’t “push my beliefs down other people’s throats”, and apologises for any unintentional distress” that she may have caused.

However, she says she was made to feel “like a criminal” and claims that Christians are being persecuted in the name of “political correctness”.

This is what Liberal tolerance looks like.

They have pushed their anti-christian agenda to the legal limit under the guise of separation of church and state.  They have twisted the religious guarantees of the 1st Amendment to the constitutional breaking point in ways never envisioned by the Founding Fathers.  They have turned freedom of religion on its head.  What they now guarantee instead is freedom from religion.  Especially the christian religion.  Their goal is a christianist-free society because, in their minds, a Leftist Utopia would spontaneously break out all over the world if you–you gun toting, Bible clinging, racist xenophobe–stopped believing in Jaysus and the Big Spaghetti Monster in the Sky.  The British don’t have constitutionally enshrined religious liberties the way we do here in the U.S.   But the secular progressive movement is transnational.  It has no borders.  They want exactly for the U.S. what they are doing in Europe.

December 21, 2009

Hold the Line

Unyielding: Sir Thomas More

In 1535, Sir Thomas More, chancellor of England, was tried and executed for, among other things, refusing to recognize King Henry’s VIII divorce and unlawful remarriage.  He had been under pressure from all sides to bend on the matter, including from the King, fellow churchmen, as well as his closest family.  But he refused to betray his conscience.  In the play A Man For All Seasons, we have the following exchange:

The Duke of Norfolk: Oh confound all this. I’m not a scholar, I don’t know whether the marriage was lawful or not but dammit, Thomas, look at these names! Why can’t you do as I did and come with us, for fellowship!

Sir Thomas More: And when we die, and you are sent to heaven for doing your conscience, and I am sent to hell for not doing mine, will you come with me, for fellowship?

In what is sometimes referred to as the “Post-Christian” era, evangelical christianity is considered by some as the Faith’s lone unapolagetic holdout against the militant secularist tide that has swept the West.  Though in many ways subject to the same sociocultural pitfalls afflicting Western culture at large, they remain unyielding on theological doctrine.  They have so far refused to follow “for fellowship” the mainline sects down the path of compromise and political correctness.  But cracks have begun to appear even in the walls of this last archaic bastion.

DENVER – The auditorium lights turned low, the service begins with the familiar rhythms of church: children singing, hugs and handshakes of greeting, a plea for donations to fix the boiler.

Then the 55-year-old pastor with spiked gray hair and blue jeans launches into his weekly welcome, a poem-like litany that includes the line “queer or straight here, there’s no hate here.”

Tidd is an outlaw pastor of sorts. His community, less than a year old, is an evangelical Christian church guided both by the Apostle’s Creed and the belief that gay people can embrace their sexual orientation as God-given and seek fulfillment in committed same-sex relationships.

“Highlands Church represents a breakout position, where you have a gay-affirming stance that moves beyond the traditional kind of liberal-conservative divide,” said Mark Achtemeier, an associate professor at University of Dubuque Theological Seminary, which is affiliated with the Presbyterian Church (U.S.A.). “I’m finding lots of moderate conservatives just think there’s something wrong with a default position of excluding gays from the life of the church.”

“I don’t think it can be taken for granted anymore that the traditional evangelical view will be adopted by the coming generations given the changes and shifts in our culture,” Dockery said.

Tidd said Highlands is not a one-issue church but one committed to social justice. He describes it as “radically inclusive but still rooted in the essentials of the Gospel.” The church discourages promiscuity and encourages healthy lifelong relationships.

Tidd said he supports gay marriage and would perform same-sex blessings if asked. A gay man in a committed relationship sits on the church’s board of trustees.

“Our position is not one of lenience, but a matter of justice,” said Tidd, a married father of five. “It’s not that we don’t acknowledge the reality of sin. It’s not a sin to be gay or act in accordance with your nature.”

More gay marriage here.

It’s a tangled and sensitive issue, gentle readers.  But we can’t ignore it in hopes it will go away.  It should be approached with humility, but also boldly.  And because we at CCHQ believe this issue is at the front line in the battle for Christendom, we offer a guide on how to do it.

In the moral and intellectual tradition of Christianity throughout its history, which has nurtured and informed my heart and mind for all of my years on this Earth, homosexual relations have never been, nor will ever be, the moral equal to those between man and woman.   We do not believe that homosexuals are any more wicked or evil than the rest of us.  But we believe that homosexuality is a disorder in the sense that there is a natural order of things (trying to fit centuries of thinking on Natural Law into a blog post will have to wait for another date).  Having a disorder–any disorder–is neither sinful (because it is not a function of the will) nor does it make one less a child of God.  But homosexual acts (which do involve the will) are disordered, and therefore sinful.

You might then retort, “But you can’t deny someone the right to gay marriage based on your religious beliefs!”  Here is problem with that line of thinking:

1. Opposition to gay marriage is more than a “religious belief,” it’s a moral position held by people all over the world of all religions, and of no religion at all.  It’s a universal moral position.  Moral positions aren’t unconstitutional.  My religious beliefs certainly inform my moral position; in this I am no different from you or anybody else.  We all have religious beliefs: atheism is a religious belief, even “I don’t care about religion” is a religious belief.  There is also nothing unconstitutional about religious beliefs informing a moral position, as such a thing would be virtually impossible.

2.  The fuss over gay marriage is not about, nor has it ever been about, marriage. It is about the homosexual community trying to redefine an institution as part of the larger campaign to have homosexual relations be accorded the same moral status as heterosexual ones.  As such, the gay community, is therefore on a mission to try to get their moral position enforced as law.  As we at CCHQ oppose their moral position, we cannot and will not support their efforts, and will oppose them in the public sphere, and at the ballot box whenever such measures appear.

I hope our position is clear, gentle readers, and that your position on this issue also be clear.  We at CCHQ do not hate homosexuals, nor do we have a particular axe to grind against them.  However, morally equating homosexual relations with heterosexual ones is not something that shall ever be forthcoming from me.  In the battle for Christendom, we continue to withdraw, to fall back.  But the line must be drawn here.  This far and no further.

December 18, 2009

Hollywood’s Inverted Reality

Because reality often tends to have a rather rightwing bias, the arbiters of culture in our entertainment industry are forced to avoid certain topics and concerns deemed as too sensitive to handle by you, the great unwashed.  One of those uncomfortable subjects is the muslim practice of “honor killing.”  I call it a “muslim” practice because although not “koranic” per se, it is nevertheless a sufficiently common practice in cultural Islam that even the so-called secular governments of the Islamic world prefer turn a blind eye to it than incur the people’s wrath by cracking down on the practice. Recently, however, Hollywood courageously broke its silence on the topic in a rather creative way.

The NCIS franchise, a sort of military CSI show, ran with this message in each of last night’s episodes – with a twist.  On NCIS, a young Marine is found murdered. He is found to be a recent convert to Islam (formerly a Christian), and the son of a retired Christian Marine chaplain. As the plot progresses, we find that the widow (also a Christian) has been, shall we say, unfaithful during her husband’s deployment.  The father (the chaplain) has been paying his son’s unit members to harass him into quitting the Marines.  And the murderer, we find, is the brother of the deceased. Why did one brother kill the other? Simply put, the deceased Marine had dishonored his family’s name by converting to Islam – so the Christian brother killed him for it.  That’s right: NCIS featured a CHRISTIAN HONOR KILLING last night.

More on Hollywood’s inverted reality here. Or just the audio.

Untold thousands of muslim women across the world live in fear of their own families because of the practice of honor killing.  Dozens of actual cases are reported in Europe and the U.S. every year.  But the singular time Hollywood broaches the subject, they do it by using a Christian, and in the military. Have you ever gotten the impression, gentle readers, that Hollywood really doesn’t want your money?  You could be forgiven for thinking so.

And now for a christian-free look at the practice of honor killing:

Older Posts »