The Rubin Report: Lalo Dagach and Dave Rubin: Regressives, Religion, and Politics

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review: The Rubin Report: Lalo Dagach and Dave Rubin: Regressives, Religion, and Politics

Just to respond to Lalo Dagach’s question about what should Liberals do (and I mean real Liberals) when the question is about what should be done when it’s a question of tolerance or standing up for liberal values. Like equal rights and women being treated equally and not worst under law. The answer to that is pretty easy. The Liberal always stands up for liberal values. Liberal values mean nothing when Liberals don’t stand up for them.

Even if that means telling people that they’re wrong and they have real serious regressive faults. Where a lot of people and in this case women, are hurt from a result of religious authoritarianism in the Middle East. When pointing out the real faults of people becomes a form of bigotry, then we’re in real trouble. You might as well move to North Korean and oh by the way, leave all your personal-decision making and individualism there, because that won’t be tolerated there. If you want to live in a place where the truth doesn’t matter, because someone might be offended by it.

Nothing bigoted about the truth. Especially when the truth is negative, because without negative truth and facts we would never be able to improve ourselves. Because someone is always giving up medals for showing up and participating when life is so much more than that and being there is just the beginning. When instead of getting participation medals you need a verbal slap in the face. And for someone to tell us, ‘you fucked up buddy and this is where you come up short and this is what you should’ve been doing all along instead.’

Now these Far-Left Commie Regressive’s who has this Che Guevara notion or wherever the hell they got it that says putting down or critiquing non-Caucasian-Christians, especially Anglo-Saxon Christians, is a form of bigotry even when the critic is correct, what are they smoking? And can I get some of that when I need to take a break from reality? What’s progressive about putting now Southern Anglo-Saxon Protestants when they show bigotry against women and gays, but you ignore the exact same things that happen in the Middle East and in some cases even worst. Like being put to death simply for being gay and sometimes for not being a Muslin.

I’ve argued this before, but Liberals believe in liberal values. I know, that’s just commonsense and now I’m going to tell you that business people believe in enterprise and Vince Lombardi believed in the power sweep and Air Force generals believe in a good air attack and etc. But what’s the point of liberal values if Liberals don’t believe in them. People have the right to call themselves whatever the hell they want. If a red-haired Irishmen wants to call himself Frank Sinatra or Jesus Christ, who am I to say he can’t.

But if you want to be taken seriously for what you say you are then you have to believe in the values of your self-identification. You’re not a Liberal if you don’t believe in liberal values and tolerance is just one of them. Liberalism is based on factually based evidence and the truth. And the first liberal value if free speech. And when you say certain things shouldn’t be allowed to be said even when they’re true, because they may tend to offend, you’re not being liberal.

Read Full Post »

Salon: Opinion- Sophia McClennen: Lets Listen to Bill Maher- How Bill Maher Walks a Fascinating and Tricky Line

Source: Real Time With Bill Maher

Source: This piece was originally posted at The Daily Review

I think the best way to look at Bill Maher’s politics is to look at him from a George Carlin perspective as someone who leans left and Democrat, but in his heart he’s an Independent. Whose free to critique both sides especially the fringes on both sides when it comes to issues that he cares about.

Bill Maher, will go after the Christian-Right when they proposing outlawing adultery, or homosexuality and create a national time machine that will take America back to 1955. Or economic Libertarians when they call for outlawing all social insurance programs in one hand, as they fight like hell for their corporate welfare. That in many cases keeps them in business if you look at how they mismanage their own companies. On the Left, he’ll go after so-called Progressives, that have this marijuana high utopian notion that minorities aren’t entitled to any criticism. And they should be left to a world where there’s no criticism of anything that they do or say. While the New-Left goes after the Far-Right every time they breathe on someone they care about.

What I think the New-Left in America and I call them that, because they are made up of Democratic Socialists and New-Marxists, who apparently aren’t fans of either economic or personal freedom and just wants a society where government takes care of protects everyone, especially minorities, even everyone from themselves, but what I think they don’t get about Bill Maher is that his show is called Real Time with Bill Maher for a very good reason. He tells it like it is at least from his perspective and what he knows and in many cases is right. But that when it comes to economic policy, he has a hell of a lot in common with the New-Left. If anything he’s further left on economic policy than Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders. And believes that the wealthy should pay ninety-percent in income taxes. He believes being rich and economically independent is a bad thing.

They way I describe Maher’s politics is that he’s a Socialist Liberal. Very progressive if not socialist on economic policy, but very liberal on social issues and foreign policy. He wants big government in our wallets, but out of our bedrooms and personal lives in general, just as long as we aren’t hurting innocent people. And perhaps especially he wants big government out of our mouths. Telling us what we can say and what we can’t say. Probably the strongest and sharpest opponent of the New-Left when it comes to political correctness. And believes America should defend freedom, just as long as we aren’t doing all the fighting and trying to fight for countries that won’t fight for themselves. Which is what a liberal foreign and national security policy is about.

So if you’re Far-Left when it comes to economic policy, social policy and foreign and national security policy, you’re probably only going to like Bill Maher about 1-3 of the time. And the other 2-3 you’ll be accusing him of being a hate-monger, or bigot, or even worst, the L-Word, which is Libertarian! Which would be like a Conservative calling a leftist a Socialist. So Salon, the AlterNet, TruthOut, etc, if you’re looking for someone to put down America and bash the Christian-Right, while calling Islāmic terrorism and culture Freedom of Religion and expression, even though you don’t believe in Freedom of Religion, Bill Maher is not your boy. If you want someone to defend both the welfare state when it comes to Bernie Sanders and nanny state when it comes to Mike Bloomberg, Bill Maher is not your boy. And you should just stick with people who are in your league like Michael Moore.
Real Time With Bill Maher: Why Do They Hate Us?

Read Full Post »

Atheism-is-Unstoppable: Woody Allen, The Atheist

Source: Atheism-is-Unstoppable: Woody Allen, The Atheist

I don’t have a problem with actual Liberals being religious and actually if I had to guess just at looking at the Democratic Party, Liberals tend to be religious. But as a Liberal myself, I have a problem with being both religious, or an Atheist, because I simply don’t know if there’s a God, or not. Liberalism, is based of reason and evidence, not faith. And if you take the position that God doesn’t exist, but you can’t prove it, because no one actually knows, if we were all real about this, you have faith even as an Atheist that God doesn’t exist.

I just don’t work that way as a non-religious person who generally doesn’t go by faith. I trust people, sure, because they’ve given me reason to trust them. But again that is based on actual evidence. Not having some grand vision and beliefs that there is some higher power out there watching over everyone. There isn’t some Liberal God (at least that I know of) giving Liberals all of their powers and ideas. We developed them based on knowledge and evidence from what works. Education, freedom, responsibility and let people make their own decisions.

And because I don’t have faith in whether there’s a God or not, I’m neutral on the subject. I’m an Agnostic and I take strong positions on issues where there’s clear evidence one way or the other. Which is how I have my liberal principles that are built around individuality, choice and responsibility. Because that is where the evidence suggests that I should be. Put out all of the facts and information about all of the issues on the table. (Just don’t eat them) Educate everyone as best as possible, but at the end of the day let people make their own personal and economic decisions and hold them responsible for them.

I don’t hold these values, because I have faith that they will work, but because there’s clear evidence that they will work and have worked. Religion, is the opposite of that at least as it relates to God. “We can’t see God personally, but we know he’s there looking after us, because we have in faith in them.” That doesn’t mean anything to me and I’m not impressed by that. But others of course can make their own decisions. Which is what I believe in as a Liberal. It is one thing to have strong moral religious values about how you look at life. It is another to say, “this is what is right, because God told us that.” How would you know that, did you ask him? Did you see him write that down somewhere? How do you know that God is a man? I don’t have to answer these questions, because I don’t believe in God, because I don’t know if one, or many exist, or not.

Read Full Post »

The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

Dave Rubin & Sam Harris

Source: The Rubin Report: Sam Harris and Dave Rubin Talk Religion, Politics, Free Speech

The only thing that I disagree with Sam Harris and his critique about Islam that I’ve seen from him and I’ve only been following his blog for about a year now, “is that the problem with the free speech debate about Islam, are Liberals.” Who invented free speech? Liberals! You want to give me the classic vs modern liberal argument all you want. But the fact is Liberals gave us our free speech. Not God, not Conservatives, or anyone else, but Liberals. You can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. It would be like being a pro-drug war, pro-preemptive war, anti-capitalist Libertarian. Liberals, are not the problem in the free speech debate about Islam and religion in general. The problem is leftist political correctness warriors, whether you want to call them Progressives, Socialists, New Marxists. But people who believe minorities should be excluded from criticism.

Nowhere in the U.S. Constitution, especially in the First Amendment does it give any class or group of Americans the right not to criticized. Actually, the opposite is true since we all have the right to say whatever we want to about everyone else, short of libeling and threatening people, or inciting violence. This comes from our liberal Freedom of Speech. The constitutional right for Americans to freely express themselves. If you believe in political correctness, you believe in free speech for yourself and your faction. Just not for the opposition. So when a member from your team expresses them self in a way that offends the other side. That is free speech from your point of view. But if the other side says something offensive about a group you care about, well that’s hate speech that must be shut down. According to a political correctness fascist. Which is what we’re talking about here. Free speech, where Liberals, Libertarians and Conservatives are. Versus fascists on the Far-Left and Far-Right.

Do you believe in free speech, or not? If you do, I’ll suggest you are a Liberal. Especially if you believe free speech covers speech that may offend you, or you disagree with. If you believe in political correctness, or what I call at least collective speech, you’re not a Liberal. You’re probably someone who says it’s perfectly okay to critique Christian-Conservatives when they bash gays, women and Muslims. Because the person is probably correct and besides you’re just expressing your freedom of speech. But if you make similar criticisms about Muslims, or people from Eastern religion’s who take the same positions against Muslims, you’re a racist, or some other type of bigot. Even though of course Islam is not race. Which hopefully Ben Affleck has figured out by now, but you might have to ask him that.

Read Full Post »

AlterNet: Opinion- Adam Johnson- ‘Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher Still Baffled Why So Many Far-Leftists Think They’re Bigots’: What The Far-Left Doesn’t Get About Liberalism

Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher

Source: AlterNet: Opinion: Adam Johnson: ‘Richard Dawkins & Bill Maher Still Baffled Why So Many Far-Leftists Think They’re Bigots’: What The Far-Left Doesn’t Get About Liberalism

You couldn’t count how many times you’ll see and rightfully so how many times the AlterNet and Salon in particular, will how some piece about the Christian-Right and how radical they are and show this bigotry, or that bigotry from them. They both everyday have some negative piece about the Christian-Right and this blog posts a lot negative pieces about the Christian-Right as well. That is not why Richard Dawkins (can I call him Dick) and Bill Maher are annoyed, or surprised by the New-Left in America. People that author/blogger Sam Harris calls regressive leftists. It’s when something radical and horrible is done by non-Christians in America especially right-wing Muslims who believe women should be treated like second-class citizens that the New-Left will either ignore, or defend that gets to Dawkins and Maher.

Atheism and liberalism and they’re not the same thing, is not about going after Christianity and only defending speech that critiques the Christian-Right and the broader right-wing in America. Liberalism is not about defending speech against Christians while trying to censor speech against Muslims. It’s about defending speech regardless of who it comes from and what the speaker says. Short of libeling people and inciting violence. Which is why the New-Left aren’t Liberals, but what I at least call New Marxists, because they don’t understand that. And have this real fascist element that says they’re going to defend their right to free speech to the hill, as they try to shut down speech and speakers they disagree with. The Real Liberals in this debate are the defenders of free speech regardless of who is speaking. Which are Richard Dawkins and Bill Maher, because they’re defending free speech.

I’ve made this point several times before, but you can’t be a Liberal if you don’t believe in free speech. And you’re not much of an Atheist if you only concentrate on one religion and in this case that religion being Christianity and the Southern Anglo-Saxon right-wing form of it. If you have a problem with Christian Conservatives who say that women’s place is in the home and that gays should be in a mental institution, or someplace, great! I’m with you, but how about Muslim countries that don’t allow women to even drive, or vote, show their faces in public even. Do you not have a problem with that and just view as part of their culture? Is so like Richard Dawkins said, the hell with their culture! Because that is not a culture that is worth defending. Not talking about ignoring the problems with the radical Christian-Right. Just saying that they aren’t the only source of radical religion in the world.

Read Full Post »

Dark Lord ABC: Bill Maher With Charlie Rose

Source: Dark Lord ABC

Source: This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat Plus

I disagree with Bill Maher on a couple of things here. The thing about Islam, I’m not a Muslim and that has to do with the fact that I’m not a fan of Islam. Its way too conservative for me as a religion, especially as it relates to women’s issues and social issues in general. But if Islam and Muslims were as prone to violence, America would be a lot more dangerous place. We have what, five-million Muslims in America and not all of them live in Detroit and the state of Michigan. If Muslims were as violent as Maher seems to think, America would be a hell of a lot more violent than it is right now. Without Muslims committing so many violent acts in America.

I agree with Maher on one thing about Liberals and disagree with him on another. He said that he gets booed by Liberals in his audience. Well unless he’s saying something to the effect that public education should be outlawed, homosexuality should be outlawed and it should be illegal for women to work and vote, which is what Ann Coulter seems to believe, it’s not Liberals that are booing him. Maher gets booed by his so-called supporters when he says something that is not politically correct with his illiberal politically correct audience. Who believe that language that offends them and people they care about, should be censored. Free speech, liberal. Political correctness, illiberal fascism.

And where I agree with Maher as it relates to Liberals. The polling about who is Liberal and who is Conservative and who is Socialist and who is Libertarian, is simply wrong. If you look at all the cultural war issues right now, especially social issues, America is a very liberal country. We believe in free speech, right to privacy, personal freedom in general. And also believe in public education, infrastructure investment, comprehensive immigration reform, a safety net for people who need it. We are also a lot more Socialist than we get credit for, because a lot of people who call themselves Liberals, are actually Socialists. Like a lot of Bill Maher’s audience.
Dark Lord ABC: Bill Maher With Charlie Rose

Read Full Post »

Oxford Union: Video: Bill Maher Full Q&A

Oxford Union: Video: Bill Maher Full Q&A

Bill Maher, I would describe politically as a Socialist-Liberal. Liberal, on personal and social issues, especially freedom of speech. Where he puts basically no limits on it. And neither do I really, other than libel, harassment and inciting violence. But, he’s pretty Far-Left on economic policy and consistently endorses big government socialism and higher taxes on everyone, to pay for new government social spending. And says that government should take over this and that and education is one of his examples. And he’s in favor of a maximum income and other big government socialist policies. And that America, should be like Europe, perhaps across the board.

But when it comes to especially free speech issues and the right to offend, especially when he’s right, I’ve backed him on every single so-called controversy that he’s brought to himself in the last year. As Maher says, he’s the real Liberal when it comes to talking about religion and talking about what he doesn’t like about it. But what separates Maher from lets say Ben Affleck, or Salon, or the AlterNet, or some other Far-Left publication, is that Maher when he criticizes religion, just doesn’t pick on Christianity. The Far-Left, picks on Christianity, because they see it as a redneck religion, that only Southern rural Caucasians follow.

The Far-Left, won’t at least openly criticize any non-Caucasian, especially women and any non-Western religion, because they see that as bigotry, or at least that’s what they say. And what separates a Bill Maher, or Sam Harris, from Ben Affleck and his followers, is that Maher and Harris criticize religion and people that they disagree with and have serious issues with. Regardless of their religion and ethnicity, or race. But again to the Far-Left, the fake liberals on the Left, any criticism of non-Christians, non-Jews, non-Caucasians, people of non-Western descent, is considered bigotry to them. Where Bill Maher as a social Liberal lets say, believes in Free Speech. And that means the right to speak freely, even if you offend people. Especially when you’re right.

Read Full Post »

Raw Story: Arturo Garcia- Bill Maher Slams Berkley Protesters: Who Said You Only Had to Hear What Didn’t Upset You?

Real Time

Source: This piece was originally posted at FRS FreeStates

Finally someone who calls them self a Liberal other than myself, who of course is a real thing (self-high five for me) who calls people to the left of us the far-left. Because that is exactly what these Berkley Bill Maher protesters represent in America. The far-left and their political correctness movement of “if we don’t like what you have to say, we’ll shut you up, or sure as hell try to shut you up!” Again I’m being nice and they would probably use their free speech rights that apparently only believe they should have and put it stronger than that.

To Bill Maher’s point, what happened to the free speech movement at Berkley? The hell with the political correctness movement that perhaps has replaced the free speech movement at Berkley that is supposed to be some champion of liberalism. I want to know what happened to the free speech movement at Berkley of the 1960s and the Baby Boom Generation there. And as far as Ben Affleck, here’s another opportunity to have fun with his logic (if you have to call it that) when it comes to racism. Islam is of course not a race, but a religion Big Ben. If you don’t believe me, ask Reza Aslam.

Liberals believe in free speech and if you only support free speech that you support, please remove the liberal label from your chest voluntarily, or I might rip it off for you. Free speech is not just speech you agree with. It is also speech that you may not like and it might be speech that you not only not like, but is accurate and goes against whatever ideological argument that you are trying to make. Which is what are called inconvenient facts or the inconvenient truth. To paraphrase Al Gore.

Bill Maher understands these things and so do real Liberals who truly live up to liberal values with free speech being at the top. It is not called the First Amendment because speech won some lottery and the Founding Fathers the Founding Liberals knew exactly how important free speech was. Which is why they made it the First Amendment. And if you don’t believe in the First Amendment, even if you support all the other liberal values, you come up way too short to be a Liberal.

Read Full Post »

Salon: Opinion: Gabriel Arana: Bill Maher’s Islam Silence: Why Canceling Bill Maher’s Berkley Speech is a Mistake: Freedom of Speech Protects Everyone, Not Just People You Agree With

Real Time

Salon: Opinion: Gabriel Arana: Bill Maher's Islam Silence: Why Canceling Bill Maher's Berkley Speech is a Mistake: Freedom of Speech Protects Everyone, Not Just People You Agree With

I’m going to give you a prefect example of what right-wingers are talking about when they say what conservative writer Jonah Goldberg titled in his book back in I believe 2008, what he called Liberal Fascism. Even though the title Liberal Fascism is a bogus title. I mean you can’t be both a Liberal and a fascist, you know it is one or the other. Just like you can’t be both a Socialist and a corporatist. You can’t be anti-corporate, which is what Socialists are and be a pro-corporate, which is what corporatists are.

Berkley University, which is what I call California University, has or a group of their left-wing ill-liberal students have decided that they not only do not agree with comedian, left-wing comedian, by the way Bill Maher’s views on Islam, but that they do not want him speaking at their university. So the school has canceled the Maher speech there. Now here’s a couple of reasons why that is a big mistake. One is practical because Berkley is a public university and part of the California State Government. So Maher’s free speech rights to me at least as a non-lawyer are being violated.

But the other issue gets to a philosophical one. Banning someone or canceling on someone because you not only disagree with your views, but you are offended by them. “Don’t allow that guy to speak because we disagree with him and he would be saying things that we don’t want our people to hear”. Fascism 101 and why right-wingers call some on the Left ‘liberal fascists’. Even though again there’s nothing liberal about fascism, because the main value of liberalism is free speech and the right for one to speak freely regardless of what others may think about what they have to say.

I mean you are so offended or believe what someone is saying is no wrong and just utter garbage (or something else), let the person speak and then show people how wrong they are. That is what liberal democracy and free speech are about. The right to be heard and to be able to make your case. Knowing that you are not the only person in that country with that right. And that may include people you make disagree with. Which is something that people who are on the far-left in America, people who I call leftist fascists who are addicted political correctness, do not understand.

Read Full Post »

The Young Turks: Cenk Uygur- HBO’s Real Time With Bill Maher: Ben Affleck vs. Bill Maher & Sam Harris on Islam

Political Correctness Warrior

This piece was originally posted at The New Democrat

Just to correct Ben Affleck. Any criticism against Islam or Muslims is not racist. Why, because Islam is not a race, but a religion. I pointed this out last night, but the far-left has decided that any criticism against Islam is racist, okay bigoted, because again Islam is not a race. You want to talk about ignorance on the far-right which this blog has and will continue to do, great, but don’t leave out the far-left that has a bad habit of saying things that are simply not true.

Now why has the far-left decided that any criticism against Islam right or left is, well bigoted. Because Islam is not Christianity and Muslims tend to be something other than Caucasian and especially don’t tend to be Anglo or of Western European decent. There are Caucasian-Muslims, but they tend to come from Eastern and Southeastern Europe, like in the Slavic countries. In the small fringe world of the far-left, maybe 10-15 percent of the population, it’s perfectly acceptable to criticize the Christian-Right, especially Caucasians. But if you attack a non-Christian, non-western religion, you are a bigot.

The far-left or fascist-left with their whole political correctness movement has decided that outlawing speech they find offensive, is simply not practical. The whole First Amendment gets in their way on that. So what they’ve decided that if they can’t shut people up through government force, they’ll try to shut people up through protest and lawsuit and screaming at people, to prevent people even on the Left like Sam Harris and Bill Maher, from making their case.

Read Full Post »