A man often identified as a liberal speaks out with a large dose of common sense:
Or watch video here: https://youtu.be/Ebg2YnBj9II
33 COMMENTS
That is excellent, spot on.
Professional psychologists can weigh in on the subject of brainwashing the public through film. The psychologists probably have a lot to say about it. I feel that any planned justified use of firearms in self defense that I may have includes overcoming even my own reluctance to impose a stopping harm on someone who must be stopped via harm “in the moment.” Anticipating personal satisfaction from shooting anybody? No! All the people I know who have shot somebody, either accidentally or deliberately, in combat or peace, seem to have suffered mental consequences in some form. Or prison. What is Hollywood doing? On the other hand, personal survival carries a lot of satisfaction. By the way, regarding advice on traveling with a firearm, I like “Armed Attorneys – You Tube.” Direct, brief, and alarmingly informative. Wow, what we need to know, like where not to plan to stop!”
I never appreciated this guy Bill Maher , but he seems to be coming around to the truth in the world…..thanks for sharing Mas……cheers from Orlando, Paul
Love it.
I regularly delete and unsubscribe from any feed with Maher’s face on the thumbnail but I watched this one. A surprising turn of common sense from an unexpected source. His regular writers must be on strike.
Even as child, I knew “The Lone Ranger” and other action shows were not real. Unfortunately, there are some with victim or mental health issues who see some films as inspiration. I’ve been a firearms instructor since 1968 and virtually none of my students are among those who might be inspired to action by these shows. Rather than teaching politics, gender affirmation, and awarding everyone a trophy, children would be better served by folks who can sense their issues, vulnerabilities, and motivations. It is long time passed to stop affirming and start assessing and addressing.
BRAVO BILL!
It seems that Bill Maher has floated down the left liberal path for years and then has now realized he has gone too far. He seems to be trying to move to the right towards center left. This video is not the first one where he has chastised the left for going too far into crazy land. He better be careful, because it is well known that the left will eat its own.
Excellent commentary from a guy I don’t usually listen to. Hollywood, as usual is hypocritical on the topic.
Well, you know, it’s the “do as I say, not as I do” rule.
If it makes money, all bets are off.
Hypocrisy from the American Left? Well, shut my mouth!
Pointing out that the Political Left is full of hypocrites is like pointing out that water is wet or that the sun is bright. It is hardly a revelation.
Sadly, I am old enough to remember the old TV show HEE HAW. They used to sing a song, on that show, that included the line:
“If it wasn’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.”
Well, if it wasn’t for their hypocrisy (and projection), the American Left would have no ideology at all. They take all their past crimes and project them upon their political opponents and then use their own crimes as an excuse to condemn America and it’s founding. Here are some examples:
1) The first democrat President was Andrew Jackson. What did he get done while in office? Why he pushed the relocation of native Americans from the Eastern U.S. His great accomplishment was the “Trail of Tears”.
2) In the South, the democrat party went on to become the party of slavery (leading to the Civil War). In the North, they became the party of big city corruption (still are, for that matter) with outfits like Tammany Hall.
3) After losing the Civil War, they formed the KKK and tried to hold onto power with terrorism.
4) When that did not work out, they worked to pass “Jim Crow” laws to stack the deck so that they could continue to hold onto power in the South. “Stacking the Deck” via election manipulation is an old, old, old story for the democrats.
5) When the great depression occurred, they used it as an excuse to increase their political power and to centralize power in D.C. (Never let a crisis go to waste!)
6) During WW II, it was a democrat President (FDR) that put Asian Americans into interment camps.
7) When the Civil Rights movement got started, they saw that Jim Crow was dead. So, they jumped on the Civil Rights bandwagon and led it to the “Welfare State” (under LBJ). Just a more subtle method of keeping African Americans “on the plantation” and voting to keep the democrat party in power.
Nowadays, they push the woke ideology and their old standard ploy of racial division. They manufacture the “Gradience Collecting” mindset, and use chaos, and lawlessness as means to keep the American People divided and unorganized. They were the ones who oppressed native Americans and African Americans during the 19th and 20th Centuries. However, they blame the Republicans for their own past crimes (The Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery) and use their own crimes as justification to say that America was founded on injustice. Wrong! The Democrat Party was founded on injustice.
The Democrat Party has always been a dark stain on America and American Politics. It will remain a dark stain until such time that the “Party of Hate and Division” is, itself, banned and outlawed as a terrorist and criminal organization.
Don’t forget that the infamous “Three-Fifths” rule was negotiated because the Democrats of the South wanted full Congressional representation based on their white and black populations, but had no intention of letting blacks vote for that representation; Southern whites would exclusively wield that political power. If they had full representation, the Democrats would have held unassailable control over Congress for a very long time, and the Civil Rights Act probably would never have passed.
Modern-day youths are not taught this, and these days young minorities hold up protest signs saying that Republicans considered them three-fifths of a person. They don’t realize that if they had full representation — and at the same time, NO representation due to “Jim Crow” voting laws and poll taxes — they might still be considered non-persons today.
Archer,
You produced an excellent explanation, of a concept, “The 3/5ths Rule,” which is misunderstood, more than it is understood, even by adult, registered voters.
Also, every American should read THE FIRST DRAFT of The Declaration of Independence. The one we use is THE FOURTH DRAFT. In the first draft, Jefferson excoriates King George III for the slave trade. Eleven of the colonies wanted to end slavery in 1776, but two colonies did not. So, for the sake of unity, and the need to stand united against the most powerful empire on earth, slavery was allowed to remain legal.
Jefferson like his first draft, and did not like the fourth draft.
Actually there were no Democrats when the Constitution was written. But aside from that I agree with the assessment of that party.
TN_MAN,
When I saw the line, “If it wasn’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all,” it reminded me of the song, “Born Under a Bad Sign” by Cream. Looks like they learned it from Albert King.
Seriously, Bill Maher is straight-on point with this commentary. When Hollywood is willing to curtail their 1st amendment right, I might consider (?) curtailing my 2nd amendment right.
Hollywood goes where the profit is with no moral bearing on the outcome. Decades ago actors had at least a little pride in their country and glorified true heroes but then they they started to slip after Viet Nam. They only do what they do to sell movies knowing very well that their fans have very, very short memories.
Bill Maher’s clip goes right in line with Lt Col David Gross man’s book, “Stop Teaching our Kids to Kill.”
But of course the political left probably never read his book, as Grossman is politically right.
Hopefully the left will cut down on the movie gun violence (but I’m not holding my breath).
We ignored the warnings of Lt. Col. David Grossman 15-10 years ago. And we are apprehensive about where our society is today? I’m not surprised.
What would be the result if somebody tried to post Maher’s video on facebook? It would be a very interesting can of left-ist shall-we-or-shall-we-not censor-this worms that gets into double negatives, triple negatives, and quadruple negatives….
(If I knew how to post something to facebook, I might have tried it, just to see what happened.)
I posted this video on Facebook. To good not to share.
I have been sharing some videos of Boll M for a while now on a,number of issues. I had to convince some to watch but the response has been similar to what I see here. He is still quite left of center on some issues. Regardless, I have seen quite a few where he hits it right out of the ball park.
Speaking of violence in movies, I notice that the Woke fanatics have issued a new warning code for movies. In addition to warnings about violence, nudity, and profane language, they now have an OC (Outdated Cultural Reference) code to apply to movie content. They use this code for any content that does not slavishly adhere to the latest flavor of Woke Political Correctness. Any older movie that reflects some sense of pride in America gets this label to warn the audience that the content is not PC.
In this, we see the arrogance of the American Left on full display. These people (who are corrupt to their core and have a negative moral compass) have the gall to make themselves the judge over which cultures are “correct” and which are now to be considered “outdated”.
It is rather like having a homosexual prostitute lecture children about right and wrong (Oh wait, the Left does that too!)
Quote of the Day:
Isaiah 64:6: But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
You know, I pray for the day when we can apply OC to the Woke Madness.
Such a day is coming; make no mistake. Our species (Homo Insanus) is prone to these bouts of mass insanity. These insanity episodes flourish for a day and then fade into justly merited obscurity. The Witch Burners, the Holders of the Inquisition, the people who claim to be the Master Race (or to have the Master Ideology) always flame out in the end. The only question is how much will they burn down before they flame out?
Let’s see now….. high scratchy voice, sixties era polyester suit and horn rimmed glasses, deadpan delivery.. thus guy is about the nerdiest dweeb I’ve seen for a while. So I was not only totally surprised but belly laughing at this guy’s schtick. He NAILS it. Absolutely spot on, time after time. And he does it deadpan jardly even cracking an hint of a smile. Even though he KNOWS he’s got the audience.
While Bill Maher is “Spot on” with his spoken commentary, there was one glaring mistake in his presentation. This mistake was in his pie-chart showing the causes of violence in America.
One big slice of the pie was “Easy Access to Firearms”. By including this slice, he implies that Firearms-Prohibition (or restrictions) is part of the solution. Firearms-Prohibition is accepted as an “Article of Faith” by the American Left and I suppose that Bill Maher felt that he just HAD TO include this slice. As noted by one commentator above, the Left will not hesitate to “eat their own” and Old Bill put himself in danger just by doing this segment at all. I suppose he felt that he needed to throw this bone to the wolves of the Left or else risk being burned at the stake as a heretic.
However, Firearms-Prohibition is not a solution and this slice should have been omitted. There are at least two (2) reasons as to why this is true:
1) Morality and Good Human Behavior cannot be legislated. One cannot enforce good human behavior by regulating some material object in the environment. At least, not in a free society. If American History was still taught (properly), people would know this because it has all been tried before. A century ago, we tried to outlaw alcohol addiction by means of alcohol-prohibition. It was a failure and caused all kinds of unintended consequences. A half-century ago, we tried to outlaw drug addiction with the “War on Drugs”. It was yet another complete failure. Nowadays, the Left wants to repeat these mistakes with Firearms-Prohibition and their “War on Guns”. Maybe they think that the third time is the charm? I think that repeating the same mistake over and over and over again in the hope of a different outcome is a sign of insanity.
2) There is a Natural Right to keep and bear arms and this Right is enshrined in our Constitutional 2nd Amendment Clause. So, Prohibition of Arms, as a policy approach, is constitutionally invalid. As the Supreme Court noted in their Heller Decision “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” In Heller, bans on handguns were found to be unconstitutional. Eventually, I think that the similar bans, on semi-automatic arms and standard-capacity magazines, will also be found to be unconstitutional.
Therefore, Bill Maher should not be throwing up pie charts that mislead his viewers into thinking that Firearms-Prohibition is part of the solution to violence. It is not because Firearms-Prohibition is both (a) unworkable in a practical sense, and (b) invalid in terms of The People’s Human Rights under the Constitution.
All are very valid. Nevertheless, we need to remember that the ranks of the alcohol Prohibitionists and the contemporary War on Drugs included plenty of Republicans and conservatives.
Why should we have a War on Drugs? Why at the Federal level? Where is it that the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate drugs? Whether those drugs are on Schedule I (absolutely prohibited) or have been FDA-approved but prescribed off-label for other indications.
We saw that during COVID-19, the Feds did everything they could to inhibit doctors from prescribing, and pharmacists from dispensing. ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Each of these is perfectly safe to take whether or not they were effective for COVID. And THAT they were perfectly safe was perfectly well established. The states almost all followed suit, and state medical and pharmacy boards enforced federal policy (to enforce Democrat control over the population.)
In the War on Drugs, Congress and the DEA prohibited drugs that were very well known to be very safe (LSD and psilocybin) or relatively safe (MDMA and cannabis). Why do both Democrats and Republicans, Progressives and Conservatives, consent – even encourage – Federal regulation of drugs? This is clearly a public safety, public health, or morals issue, and as such, it is the exclusive province of the states – NOT Congress – to regulate.
Sadly, we Republicans and conservatives have OUR OWN hypocrisy to own up to.
Let’s suppose one of us truly believes that hallucinating on magic mushrooms is IMMORAL. Very well. I disagree, but honor your right to your opinion. Take your case to your own state’s legislature. Do NOT take it to your Federal Senators or representative. To do so is to dishonor the Constitution. There is no Federal power to regulate morals. Nor any Federal power to regulate that which crosses state lines via the winds or propagation underground. There is ZERO case to be made that magic mushrooms are a danger to one’s personal health. And even if there were, to consume magic mushrooms is a personal choice.
To be placed on the prohibited Schedule I, a drug must have NO KNOWN medicinal use, no known safe dose, and must be addictive. It was perfectly well known that all these things were NOT true about MDMA when banned in 1986. And now we have FDA-authorized Phase III clinical trials proving that these are all NOT true. They are not true for magic mushrooms and not true for LSD. Still, we mostly – Dem/Rep, Left/Right – actively or passively CONSENT to Federal drug regulation.
Why? Until we pull the beam from our own eyes, we lack any claim of righteous indignation when objecting to Democrat/Progressive/Leftist hypocrisy.
MarkPA,
Thanks for writing that. I agree, federalism (states’ rights) is the answer to lessening animosity in today’s political climate. One-size-fits-all federal laws anger people, because we are all different.
Allowing like-minded people to live together in states, and having them craft the laws for that state, will promote peace and harmony among them. At least, they will be less likely to fight over laws than we do today.
Sending abortion to the states should have been done in 1973. I believe abortion is infanticide, but I know it is folly for me to try to prevent a mother from killing her child. However, I want the option to live in a state where abortion is proscribed, or at least limited. Those who disagree can live elsewhere, and follow their own laws.
I imagine citizens living in states which have laws they agree with. When a citizen travels to another state, he acknowledges that he will obey the laws in that state, while he is there.
For instance, I don’t want to live where drugs are legal, but I’m OK with others allowing drugs to be legal where they live. In other words, NIMBY.
The Civil War was fought, not because the South had slaves and the North did not, but because they couldn’t decide on how to expand or contract slavery in the new states which were being admitted to the union.
Of course, human nature being what it is, people will simply find other things to fight about. The Christian denominations get along fine today, but they were hostile to each other in the 1700s.
@ MarkPA – “Until we pull the beam from our own eyes, we lack any claim of righteous indignation when objecting to Democrat/Progressive/Leftist hypocrisy.”
I don’t agree. If one needs to be a Saint, in order to have moral standing to criticize Evil/Hypocritical Policies, then no one can ever offer criticism again. Not even constructive criticism.
Quote of the Day:
“Use every man according to his desert and who should ‘scape whipping?” – William Shakespeare
Generally, for a Prohibition Policy to gain enough support for broad-scale, National implementation, there must be bipartisan support for it.
In the case of Alcohol Prohibition, such support was built by linking right-wing religious objections to alcohol use (it is a sin!) with the left-wing propensity to create a “nanny-State” and to make other people yield and dance to their rules. Once factions on both the Left and the Right decided to give alcohol prohibition a try, then it became a “done deal”. They amassed the kind of broad (Bipartisan) support necessary to make it a Constitutional Amendment.
The same dynamic applied in the case of the “War on Drugs”. The religious Right never approved of drug use (It is a sin!) and the “nanny-State” micro-managers, on the Left, are always “on-board” with increasing Governmental Control. So, again, the broad support coalition, necessary to build the DEA bureaucracy and turn it loose, was put together again.
Whenever members of both the Left and the Right agree that Prohibition has merit, then it is time to be afraid. To be very afraid!
The Left is trying to create this bipartisan dynamic once again. The “nanny-State” desire, on the Left, for the Prohibition of Firearms is already there. The have their Federal ATF bureaucracy already built and ready to go.
What they still lack is Right-wing support for this latest fools-errand of Firearms-Prohibition. They are having a hard time convincing the Right that Gun-ownership is a sin. That is the reason for the constant barrage of anti-gun indoctrination and propaganda. It is a constant drum-beat 24/7/365. The left is putting forth their maximum effort to brain-wash those on the Right that gun-ownership is a sin. That gun-owners (and firearm groups and manufacturers) are EVIL. To fear-monger firearms in every way possible. To turn our children into hopophobes by means of deep, class-room indoctrination.
They want that bipartisan coalition to support firearms-prohibition. That is the only way that they will amass the political support for another round of National Prohibition in the style of Alcohol prohibition or the War on Drugs.
It is the only way that they can hope to disarm the American People and ensure that the Left stays in power in perpetuity. They must convince the American Right that owning guns is a sin and that there is a Christian Duty to disarm. They must convince the American Right to commit suicide.
Typo correction – Obviously I meant “hoplophobes” rather than “hopophobes” in my comment above.
Even a left-wing dope-dealing “comedian” pig finds an acorn once in a while, but that’s no reason to even know he exists.
The class that should be taught in all universities could be titled “The Destruction of African American Society and Family: From LBJ to today”. Feel free to substitute “White Rural American Family” or “The Middle Class.” All orchestrated by Democrats to seize & hold power.
A little late to the gathering. Mr Maher did a nice job, it’s not the first time he’s chided the liberals on this subject, it’s probably the best version. Maybe a later version would include/replace “easy access to guns”) the third rail subject of our current society: too damn many people are not effectively parenting their children.
Fifty odd years ago when adolescents got officially into trouble, the first stage of parental notification was denial: “Can’t be my child”. Physical description and SSN would blunt that. Then, they’d admit they had no idea who their friends are. Given the internet and darn near universal cell phone ownership, many/most (let along their parents) have no clue what continent their “friends” might be on let alone what motives they might have.
He left out bad parenting, the guilty medical industry and big pharma and the fact that Hollywood needs to make those violent movies so young, dumb people will happily sign up for military service to steal oil and murder innocent people in their own countries for our tyrannical government!
That is excellent, spot on.
Professional psychologists can weigh in on the subject of brainwashing the public through film. The psychologists probably have a lot to say about it. I feel that any planned justified use of firearms in self defense that I may have includes overcoming even my own reluctance to impose a stopping harm on someone who must be stopped via harm “in the moment.” Anticipating personal satisfaction from shooting anybody? No! All the people I know who have shot somebody, either accidentally or deliberately, in combat or peace, seem to have suffered mental consequences in some form. Or prison. What is Hollywood doing? On the other hand, personal survival carries a lot of satisfaction. By the way, regarding advice on traveling with a firearm, I like “Armed Attorneys – You Tube.” Direct, brief, and alarmingly informative. Wow, what we need to know, like where not to plan to stop!”
I never appreciated this guy Bill Maher , but he seems to be coming around to the truth in the world…..thanks for sharing Mas……cheers from Orlando, Paul
Love it.
I regularly delete and unsubscribe from any feed with Maher’s face on the thumbnail but I watched this one. A surprising turn of common sense from an unexpected source. His regular writers must be on strike.
Even as child, I knew “The Lone Ranger” and other action shows were not real. Unfortunately, there are some with victim or mental health issues who see some films as inspiration. I’ve been a firearms instructor since 1968 and virtually none of my students are among those who might be inspired to action by these shows. Rather than teaching politics, gender affirmation, and awarding everyone a trophy, children would be better served by folks who can sense their issues, vulnerabilities, and motivations. It is long time passed to stop affirming and start assessing and addressing.
BRAVO BILL!
It seems that Bill Maher has floated down the left liberal path for years and then has now realized he has gone too far. He seems to be trying to move to the right towards center left. This video is not the first one where he has chastised the left for going too far into crazy land. He better be careful, because it is well known that the left will eat its own.
Excellent commentary from a guy I don’t usually listen to. Hollywood, as usual is hypocritical on the topic.
Well, you know, it’s the “do as I say, not as I do” rule.
If it makes money, all bets are off.
Hypocrisy from the American Left? Well, shut my mouth!
Pointing out that the Political Left is full of hypocrites is like pointing out that water is wet or that the sun is bright. It is hardly a revelation.
Sadly, I am old enough to remember the old TV show HEE HAW. They used to sing a song, on that show, that included the line:
“If it wasn’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all.”
Well, if it wasn’t for their hypocrisy (and projection), the American Left would have no ideology at all. They take all their past crimes and project them upon their political opponents and then use their own crimes as an excuse to condemn America and it’s founding. Here are some examples:
1) The first democrat President was Andrew Jackson. What did he get done while in office? Why he pushed the relocation of native Americans from the Eastern U.S. His great accomplishment was the “Trail of Tears”.
2) In the South, the democrat party went on to become the party of slavery (leading to the Civil War). In the North, they became the party of big city corruption (still are, for that matter) with outfits like Tammany Hall.
3) After losing the Civil War, they formed the KKK and tried to hold onto power with terrorism.
4) When that did not work out, they worked to pass “Jim Crow” laws to stack the deck so that they could continue to hold onto power in the South. “Stacking the Deck” via election manipulation is an old, old, old story for the democrats.
5) When the great depression occurred, they used it as an excuse to increase their political power and to centralize power in D.C. (Never let a crisis go to waste!)
6) During WW II, it was a democrat President (FDR) that put Asian Americans into interment camps.
7) When the Civil Rights movement got started, they saw that Jim Crow was dead. So, they jumped on the Civil Rights bandwagon and led it to the “Welfare State” (under LBJ). Just a more subtle method of keeping African Americans “on the plantation” and voting to keep the democrat party in power.
Nowadays, they push the woke ideology and their old standard ploy of racial division. They manufacture the “Gradience Collecting” mindset, and use chaos, and lawlessness as means to keep the American People divided and unorganized. They were the ones who oppressed native Americans and African Americans during the 19th and 20th Centuries. However, they blame the Republicans for their own past crimes (The Republicans were the party of Lincoln and the abolition of slavery) and use their own crimes as justification to say that America was founded on injustice. Wrong! The Democrat Party was founded on injustice.
The Democrat Party has always been a dark stain on America and American Politics. It will remain a dark stain until such time that the “Party of Hate and Division” is, itself, banned and outlawed as a terrorist and criminal organization.
Don’t forget that the infamous “Three-Fifths” rule was negotiated because the Democrats of the South wanted full Congressional representation based on their white and black populations, but had no intention of letting blacks vote for that representation; Southern whites would exclusively wield that political power. If they had full representation, the Democrats would have held unassailable control over Congress for a very long time, and the Civil Rights Act probably would never have passed.
Modern-day youths are not taught this, and these days young minorities hold up protest signs saying that Republicans considered them three-fifths of a person. They don’t realize that if they had full representation — and at the same time, NO representation due to “Jim Crow” voting laws and poll taxes — they might still be considered non-persons today.
Archer,
You produced an excellent explanation, of a concept, “The 3/5ths Rule,” which is misunderstood, more than it is understood, even by adult, registered voters.
Also, every American should read THE FIRST DRAFT of The Declaration of Independence. The one we use is THE FOURTH DRAFT. In the first draft, Jefferson excoriates King George III for the slave trade. Eleven of the colonies wanted to end slavery in 1776, but two colonies did not. So, for the sake of unity, and the need to stand united against the most powerful empire on earth, slavery was allowed to remain legal.
Jefferson like his first draft, and did not like the fourth draft.
Actually there were no Democrats when the Constitution was written. But aside from that I agree with the assessment of that party.
TN_MAN,
When I saw the line, “If it wasn’t for bad luck, I’d have no luck at all,” it reminded me of the song, “Born Under a Bad Sign” by Cream. Looks like they learned it from Albert King.
https://www.google.com/search?q=born+under+a+bad+sign+lyrics&rlz=1C1VDKB_enUS982US986&oq=Born+under+a+bad+sign+lyr&aqs=chrome.0.0i512j69i57j0i512l5j0i22i30l3.8716j0j15&sourceid=chrome&ie=UTF-8
Even a broken clock is right twice a day…
Seriously, Bill Maher is straight-on point with this commentary. When Hollywood is willing to curtail their 1st amendment right, I might consider (?) curtailing my 2nd amendment right.
Hollywood goes where the profit is with no moral bearing on the outcome. Decades ago actors had at least a little pride in their country and glorified true heroes but then they they started to slip after Viet Nam. They only do what they do to sell movies knowing very well that their fans have very, very short memories.
Bill Maher’s clip goes right in line with Lt Col David Gross man’s book, “Stop Teaching our Kids to Kill.”
But of course the political left probably never read his book, as Grossman is politically right.
Hopefully the left will cut down on the movie gun violence (but I’m not holding my breath).
We ignored the warnings of Lt. Col. David Grossman 15-10 years ago. And we are apprehensive about where our society is today? I’m not surprised.
What would be the result if somebody tried to post Maher’s video on facebook? It would be a very interesting can of left-ist shall-we-or-shall-we-not censor-this worms that gets into double negatives, triple negatives, and quadruple negatives….
(If I knew how to post something to facebook, I might have tried it, just to see what happened.)
I posted this video on Facebook. To good not to share.
I have been sharing some videos of Boll M for a while now on a,number of issues. I had to convince some to watch but the response has been similar to what I see here. He is still quite left of center on some issues. Regardless, I have seen quite a few where he hits it right out of the ball park.
Speaking of violence in movies, I notice that the Woke fanatics have issued a new warning code for movies. In addition to warnings about violence, nudity, and profane language, they now have an OC (Outdated Cultural Reference) code to apply to movie content. They use this code for any content that does not slavishly adhere to the latest flavor of Woke Political Correctness. Any older movie that reflects some sense of pride in America gets this label to warn the audience that the content is not PC.
In this, we see the arrogance of the American Left on full display. These people (who are corrupt to their core and have a negative moral compass) have the gall to make themselves the judge over which cultures are “correct” and which are now to be considered “outdated”.
It is rather like having a homosexual prostitute lecture children about right and wrong (Oh wait, the Left does that too!)
Quote of the Day:
Isaiah 64:6: But we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags; and we all do fade as a leaf; and our iniquities, like the wind, have taken us away.
You know, I pray for the day when we can apply OC to the Woke Madness.
Such a day is coming; make no mistake. Our species (Homo Insanus) is prone to these bouts of mass insanity. These insanity episodes flourish for a day and then fade into justly merited obscurity. The Witch Burners, the Holders of the Inquisition, the people who claim to be the Master Race (or to have the Master Ideology) always flame out in the end. The only question is how much will they burn down before they flame out?
Let’s see now….. high scratchy voice, sixties era polyester suit and horn rimmed glasses, deadpan delivery.. thus guy is about the nerdiest dweeb I’ve seen for a while. So I was not only totally surprised but belly laughing at this guy’s schtick. He NAILS it. Absolutely spot on, time after time. And he does it deadpan jardly even cracking an hint of a smile. Even though he KNOWS he’s got the audience.
While Bill Maher is “Spot on” with his spoken commentary, there was one glaring mistake in his presentation. This mistake was in his pie-chart showing the causes of violence in America.
One big slice of the pie was “Easy Access to Firearms”. By including this slice, he implies that Firearms-Prohibition (or restrictions) is part of the solution. Firearms-Prohibition is accepted as an “Article of Faith” by the American Left and I suppose that Bill Maher felt that he just HAD TO include this slice. As noted by one commentator above, the Left will not hesitate to “eat their own” and Old Bill put himself in danger just by doing this segment at all. I suppose he felt that he needed to throw this bone to the wolves of the Left or else risk being burned at the stake as a heretic.
However, Firearms-Prohibition is not a solution and this slice should have been omitted. There are at least two (2) reasons as to why this is true:
1) Morality and Good Human Behavior cannot be legislated. One cannot enforce good human behavior by regulating some material object in the environment. At least, not in a free society. If American History was still taught (properly), people would know this because it has all been tried before. A century ago, we tried to outlaw alcohol addiction by means of alcohol-prohibition. It was a failure and caused all kinds of unintended consequences. A half-century ago, we tried to outlaw drug addiction with the “War on Drugs”. It was yet another complete failure. Nowadays, the Left wants to repeat these mistakes with Firearms-Prohibition and their “War on Guns”. Maybe they think that the third time is the charm? I think that repeating the same mistake over and over and over again in the hope of a different outcome is a sign of insanity.
2) There is a Natural Right to keep and bear arms and this Right is enshrined in our Constitutional 2nd Amendment Clause. So, Prohibition of Arms, as a policy approach, is constitutionally invalid. As the Supreme Court noted in their Heller Decision “But the enshrinement of constitutional rights necessarily takes certain policy choices off the table.” In Heller, bans on handguns were found to be unconstitutional. Eventually, I think that the similar bans, on semi-automatic arms and standard-capacity magazines, will also be found to be unconstitutional.
Therefore, Bill Maher should not be throwing up pie charts that mislead his viewers into thinking that Firearms-Prohibition is part of the solution to violence. It is not because Firearms-Prohibition is both (a) unworkable in a practical sense, and (b) invalid in terms of The People’s Human Rights under the Constitution.
All are very valid. Nevertheless, we need to remember that the ranks of the alcohol Prohibitionists and the contemporary War on Drugs included plenty of Republicans and conservatives.
Why should we have a War on Drugs? Why at the Federal level? Where is it that the Constitution empowers Congress to regulate drugs? Whether those drugs are on Schedule I (absolutely prohibited) or have been FDA-approved but prescribed off-label for other indications.
We saw that during COVID-19, the Feds did everything they could to inhibit doctors from prescribing, and pharmacists from dispensing. ivermectin and hydroxychloroquine. Each of these is perfectly safe to take whether or not they were effective for COVID. And THAT they were perfectly safe was perfectly well established. The states almost all followed suit, and state medical and pharmacy boards enforced federal policy (to enforce Democrat control over the population.)
In the War on Drugs, Congress and the DEA prohibited drugs that were very well known to be very safe (LSD and psilocybin) or relatively safe (MDMA and cannabis). Why do both Democrats and Republicans, Progressives and Conservatives, consent – even encourage – Federal regulation of drugs? This is clearly a public safety, public health, or morals issue, and as such, it is the exclusive province of the states – NOT Congress – to regulate.
Sadly, we Republicans and conservatives have OUR OWN hypocrisy to own up to.
Let’s suppose one of us truly believes that hallucinating on magic mushrooms is IMMORAL. Very well. I disagree, but honor your right to your opinion. Take your case to your own state’s legislature. Do NOT take it to your Federal Senators or representative. To do so is to dishonor the Constitution. There is no Federal power to regulate morals. Nor any Federal power to regulate that which crosses state lines via the winds or propagation underground. There is ZERO case to be made that magic mushrooms are a danger to one’s personal health. And even if there were, to consume magic mushrooms is a personal choice.
To be placed on the prohibited Schedule I, a drug must have NO KNOWN medicinal use, no known safe dose, and must be addictive. It was perfectly well known that all these things were NOT true about MDMA when banned in 1986. And now we have FDA-authorized Phase III clinical trials proving that these are all NOT true. They are not true for magic mushrooms and not true for LSD. Still, we mostly – Dem/Rep, Left/Right – actively or passively CONSENT to Federal drug regulation.
Why? Until we pull the beam from our own eyes, we lack any claim of righteous indignation when objecting to Democrat/Progressive/Leftist hypocrisy.
MarkPA,
Thanks for writing that. I agree, federalism (states’ rights) is the answer to lessening animosity in today’s political climate. One-size-fits-all federal laws anger people, because we are all different.
Allowing like-minded people to live together in states, and having them craft the laws for that state, will promote peace and harmony among them. At least, they will be less likely to fight over laws than we do today.
Sending abortion to the states should have been done in 1973. I believe abortion is infanticide, but I know it is folly for me to try to prevent a mother from killing her child. However, I want the option to live in a state where abortion is proscribed, or at least limited. Those who disagree can live elsewhere, and follow their own laws.
I imagine citizens living in states which have laws they agree with. When a citizen travels to another state, he acknowledges that he will obey the laws in that state, while he is there.
For instance, I don’t want to live where drugs are legal, but I’m OK with others allowing drugs to be legal where they live. In other words, NIMBY.
The Civil War was fought, not because the South had slaves and the North did not, but because they couldn’t decide on how to expand or contract slavery in the new states which were being admitted to the union.
Of course, human nature being what it is, people will simply find other things to fight about. The Christian denominations get along fine today, but they were hostile to each other in the 1700s.
@ MarkPA – “Until we pull the beam from our own eyes, we lack any claim of righteous indignation when objecting to Democrat/Progressive/Leftist hypocrisy.”
I don’t agree. If one needs to be a Saint, in order to have moral standing to criticize Evil/Hypocritical Policies, then no one can ever offer criticism again. Not even constructive criticism.
Quote of the Day:
“Use every man according to his desert and who should ‘scape whipping?” – William Shakespeare
Generally, for a Prohibition Policy to gain enough support for broad-scale, National implementation, there must be bipartisan support for it.
In the case of Alcohol Prohibition, such support was built by linking right-wing religious objections to alcohol use (it is a sin!) with the left-wing propensity to create a “nanny-State” and to make other people yield and dance to their rules. Once factions on both the Left and the Right decided to give alcohol prohibition a try, then it became a “done deal”. They amassed the kind of broad (Bipartisan) support necessary to make it a Constitutional Amendment.
The same dynamic applied in the case of the “War on Drugs”. The religious Right never approved of drug use (It is a sin!) and the “nanny-State” micro-managers, on the Left, are always “on-board” with increasing Governmental Control. So, again, the broad support coalition, necessary to build the DEA bureaucracy and turn it loose, was put together again.
Whenever members of both the Left and the Right agree that Prohibition has merit, then it is time to be afraid. To be very afraid!
The Left is trying to create this bipartisan dynamic once again. The “nanny-State” desire, on the Left, for the Prohibition of Firearms is already there. The have their Federal ATF bureaucracy already built and ready to go.
What they still lack is Right-wing support for this latest fools-errand of Firearms-Prohibition. They are having a hard time convincing the Right that Gun-ownership is a sin. That is the reason for the constant barrage of anti-gun indoctrination and propaganda. It is a constant drum-beat 24/7/365. The left is putting forth their maximum effort to brain-wash those on the Right that gun-ownership is a sin. That gun-owners (and firearm groups and manufacturers) are EVIL. To fear-monger firearms in every way possible. To turn our children into hopophobes by means of deep, class-room indoctrination.
They want that bipartisan coalition to support firearms-prohibition. That is the only way that they will amass the political support for another round of National Prohibition in the style of Alcohol prohibition or the War on Drugs.
It is the only way that they can hope to disarm the American People and ensure that the Left stays in power in perpetuity. They must convince the American Right that owning guns is a sin and that there is a Christian Duty to disarm. They must convince the American Right to commit suicide.
Typo correction – Obviously I meant “hoplophobes” rather than “hopophobes” in my comment above.
Even a left-wing dope-dealing “comedian” pig finds an acorn once in a while, but that’s no reason to even know he exists.
The class that should be taught in all universities could be titled “The Destruction of African American Society and Family: From LBJ to today”. Feel free to substitute “White Rural American Family” or “The Middle Class.” All orchestrated by Democrats to seize & hold power.
A little late to the gathering. Mr Maher did a nice job, it’s not the first time he’s chided the liberals on this subject, it’s probably the best version. Maybe a later version would include/replace “easy access to guns”) the third rail subject of our current society: too damn many people are not effectively parenting their children.
Fifty odd years ago when adolescents got officially into trouble, the first stage of parental notification was denial: “Can’t be my child”. Physical description and SSN would blunt that. Then, they’d admit they had no idea who their friends are. Given the internet and darn near universal cell phone ownership, many/most (let along their parents) have no clue what continent their “friends” might be on let alone what motives they might have.
He left out bad parenting, the guilty medical industry and big pharma and the fact that Hollywood needs to make those violent movies so young, dumb people will happily sign up for military service to steal oil and murder innocent people in their own countries for our tyrannical government!
Comments are closed.