Saturday, January 15, 2011

The Lies of Bill Maher — And the Epic Struggle Between Good and Evil in the Aftermath of Tucson, 1/8/11

I saw this trending earlier on Memeorandum. But I caught the second half of last night's "Real Time with Bill Maher" on HBO's 9:00am rebroadcast. It's even worse in full. Michael van der Galien has the essential background: "Bill Maher to tea partiers: The Founding Fathers would’ve hated your guts."

The tea party bashing and atheist ravings are at the clip:

But early in the show Maher launched into a round of vicious blood libel:
"I thought the mantra of this administration coming in was never let a crisis go to waste. You know, if not now, when do we talk about this?," Bill Maher said on his HBO program.

"Are we going to do anything, are we going to use it?," he added.

"There is every way to connect this to partisan politics and talk radio and cable TV except evidence, there's just none of that," Democratic operative James Carville chimed in.

Maher said it should be politicized because the shooting was at a political rally with a politician speaking.

Maher continued his idea to "use" the shooting by blaming a certain ideology and political party.

"There is one side that deserves more blame. There is one side that has been fighting, has been fighting for the right of Americans to have assault rifles. That side deserves more blame," Maher declared.
God bless James Carville for attempting to slap some reality back into Bill Maher. But the "Real Time" host was having none of it. He's got his blood libel smear and he's going with it.

We've had this all week, and it's been debunked repeatedly. But blood libel is so powerful it's irresistable, and progressives will never acknowledge they were wrong from the start.

I can deal with that, as horrendous as it is.

But it's this second batch of lies this morning that's really loathsome, the libels against the faith of the Founders. Maher claims that the Founders "thought the Bible was mostly bullsh*t." Michael van der Galien calls him out:

I hate to break it to you, Bill, but the majority of the Founding Fathers were religious. And those who weren’t orthodox in their beliefs, at least had a healthy respect and appreciation for religion.

But I want to elaborate a bit more on that. Readers should get a hold of Newt Gingrich's, Rediscovering God in America. The introduction is a powerful refudiation to the atheistic libels on the religiosity of the Founders, "
Defending God in the Public Square":
There is no attack on American culture more deadly and more historically dishonest than the secular Left’s unending war against God in America’s public life ....

For two generations we have passively accepted this assault on the values of the overwhelming majority of Americans. It is time to insist on judges who understand the history and meaning of America as a country endowed by God.

The secular Left has been inventing law and grotesquely distorting the Constitution to achieve a goal that none of the Founding Fathers would have thought reasonable. History is vividly clear about the importance of God in the founding of our nation. To prove that our Creator is so central to understanding America, there is a walking tour of Washington, D.C. that shows how often the Founding Fathers and other great Americans, and the institutions they created, refer to God and call upon Him. Indeed, to study American history is to encounter God again and again. A tour like this should be part of every school class’s visit to Washington, D.C.

Religion is the fulcrum of American history. People came to America’s shores to be free to practice their religious beliefs. It brought the Pilgrims with their desire to create a “city on a hill” that would be a beacon of religious belief and piety. The Pilgrims were but one group that poured into the new colonies. Quakers in Pennsylvania were another, Catholics in Maryland yet a third. A religious revival, the Great Awakening in the 1730s, inspired many Americans to fight the Revolutionary War to secure their God-given freedoms. Another great religious revival in the nineteenth century inspired the abolitionists’ campaign against slavery.

It was no accident that the marching song of the Union Army during the Civil War included the line “as Christ died to make men holy let us die to make men free.” That phrase was later changed to “let us live to make men free.” But for the men in uniform who were literally placing their lives on the line to end slavery, they knew that the original line was the right one ....

At America’s Founding, religion was central. The very first Continental Congress in 1774 had invited the Reverend Jacob Duché to begin each session with a prayer. When the war against Britain began, the Continental Congress provided for chaplains to serve with the military and be paid at the same rate as majors in the Army.

During the Constitutional Convention of 1787, Benjamin Franklin (often considered one of the least religious of the Founding Fathers) proposed that the Convention begin each day with a prayer. As the oldest delegate, at age eighty-one, Franklin insisted that “the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth—that God governs in the Affairs of Men.”

Because of their belief that power had come from God to the individual, they began the Constitution “we the people.” Note that the Founding Fathers did not write “we the states.” Nor did they write “we the government.” Nor did they write “we the lawyers and judges.”

These historic facts pose an enormous problem for secular liberals. How can they explain America without getting into the area of religion? If they dislike and in many cases fear religion, how then can they communicate the core nature of the people in America?
Look, even Charles Blow of the New York Times has denounced the left's relentless "witch hunt" in the wake of tragedy. And I've remained focused throughout the week on the left's blood libel especially as it goes against everything they claim to represent: human goodness and scientific truth, all bundled together in a benevolent "reality-based community."


It's the big lie of the new decade. I've cried at the losses, and we can never minimize the evils wrought last Saturday. And thinking about this, perhaps in some respects the scale of the Tucson massacre pales next to the monumental horrors of the September 11 attacks a decade ago. That said, of course an enormous comparison is to be made here to the left's politicization of both of these evils. Not only do progressives desecrate the lives and memories of the fallen, they dishonor Gabrielle Giffords' noble efforts at a politics of deliberative democracy. And if regular Americans can break through the lies and distortions of the mainstream (lamestream) press, we will be at a turning point that will consign progressive-Democrats to the dustbins of political relevance for a generation or more.

Accuracy, Civility, and the Violent Fantasies of the Progressive Left."

And check these search tags for more of my commentary: "
Tucson, Arizona" and "Progressives."


dave in boca said...

This specimen of bisexuality makes Julian Assange look good in comparison.

The funniest part is that the Founding Fathers would have been Tea Party activists almost to a man. I'd like this prating d-bag to name ONE Revolutionary War Hero who'd dislike what the Tea Party is trying to do.

Dennis said...

I often wonder at the supposed "Lights" of the internet and entertainment. How in the world did these no talents ever get anyone with a brain to pay one iota of attention to them? They are not funny, don't write well and generally lack a personality. Every thing about them bespeaks an ugliness that even a mother could not love.
Bill Maher doesn't have the capability to give directions to 'road kill' much less act better than the same. Why does anyone care what this poor excuse for a human being has to say about anything?

Anonymous said...

Fuck you anti-Semitic dipshit. Stick your head in a toilet and flush until you can't.

timb said...

Uh, Dave, Jefferson wouldn't have like you and Washington rode out of the Capitol and shot "patriots" when they refused to pay taxes. The Founders established a Republic to keep know nothings like Tea Party folks away from power.

Certainly, Adams who defended the accused after the Boston Massacre was not exactly a lover of the rabble, especially the ones who were violent.

You should try actually, you know, read Gordon Woods or James Ellis or Walter Isaacson or, heck, even Barbara Tuchman's First Salute. Heck, try to read an introductory survey for a 1L law class if you want to understand even the basics....

Dennis said...

It is always good to see that non violent rhetoric on display from the Left. Interesting that no one mentioned anything about a person's background. It becomes a meaningless slur without merit and its continual use weakens it affect to the point of "who cares."
If one is getting the kind of American History demonstrated here then they need to take their own advise an read a wide variety of historians. Also if this is what passes for a first year law course then it is no wonder so many lawyers fail. It would also demonstrate why those in government have less of a grasp of the Constitution than the average citizen.
One can always tell when the Left is failing big time when the bad language, name calling, et al reaches fever pitch. A couple of perfect demonstrations of why people disqualify themselves in the marketplace of ideas and have little attention paid to them.
Please don't stop making a fool of yourselves. I have to admit I got a big laugh out of anonymous. Anonymous must teach that first year law course that was mentioned.

Scott said...

Some serious anger and frustration vented here, including the defense article itself. Ironic how when people who have their beliefs attacked get so defensive... and more often than not, its those who believe in a higher power.

The so called evidence given in this rebuttle to refute all that Bill Maher stands for is weak at best. Quoting that countries founding fathers said things like "the longer I live, the more convincing proofs I see of this truth - that God governs in the affairs of men" is not interpreted to me as admission of a God but that he recognizes that "God" affects the decision making process of most men. Hell, even I admit that. Its obvious. In a time when we know what everyone around the world thinks and believes due to media and the web... we know this. Back then, they only knew what those around them believed so it was a pretty small world to people. As Franklin aged (his quote above) he became more aware just how prevalent this "God" thing was. We have evidence and quotes from all the founding fathers of what they believed and trusted in. It wasn't God. Not for most of them anyways.

I challenge those of you who believe to do something: seek evidence without bias on the subject as Bill Maher has done, as I have done. We who tend not to believe have at one time sought evidence to help us to believe. We wanted to find it but the more we dug... the less we found. My experience has been that those who are believers pass over the stuff that contradicts their beliefs. They don't want to face a possible truth that all they "want" to believe is bullshit. The sad truth is in history for you deity followers. Nobody knows if a god exists but we do know this... it isn't just one god and he did not have a son. We have a history of evidence that goes back thousands of years before Christ and each of those "gods" mirror the bibles god in every sense.

I ask you this... what is more convincing...carbon dated scrolls and ancient hieroglyphics or a book printed in the past couple hundred years?