This is rich.

As soon as Bill Maher is threatened, he wants Rudy Giuliani to fix it for him!!!! Watch for it at 4:48.

At 2:04 he gives the definition of "audience". To listen, he says. In other words, I pontificate, YOU LISTEN AND OBEY, like you would tell a child.

My question is, where WAS security? Since my husband has worked security for tv and movies, he would never had let this situation get this far.


Go read the comments on hotair and newsbusters. Found this originally on hotair, but both places have great comments.

Liberal Fairy Tales

Oh my this was a hoot!

Once upon a time, in a land they called America, a little girl was born.

This little girl was so very beautiful, so exceptional, that her loving parents named her Snow White. Truly, her lustrous black hair and limpid dark eyes were the perfect compliment to her exquisite ivory skin. And as lovely as she was on the outside, she was even more beautiful within; her sweet, sunny personality absolutely melted everyone who saw her.

In her early childhood, her parents saw that she was taught all the important things — loving obedience, respect for others, politeness and ladylike behavior, and a child-like faith in God. These things she actually liked, and though she was quite playful and sunny, she exuded character and intelligence.

Then she met the Seven Dwarfs.

They’d been tagged with this name because they seemed so weird and insignificant; but they always clustered together, bound by strange, liberal and sometimes seditious beliefs. Some of them were teachers and others members of what was called a "civil liberties union." Somehow, they steadily gained and exerted mysterious influence. Their names were Sneaky, Dopey, Smarmy, Angry, Sleazy, Grouchy, and Dork.

Pat Boone has a way with words. Didn't know that was by Pat Boone, did you? Well, read it all. Good points!

The Gospel of John & Yoko: The Origins of Mad Morality

I found this in the pajamasmedia archives. Emphasis mine throughout. This was such an EXCELLENT piece! Go read the whole thing.

My research has led me to the excerpts from Yoko Ono and John Lennon’s articles published in the 1972 editions of Sundance magazine. Although attributed to John and Yoko jointly, they were written mostly by Yoko who clearly was the one wearing the pants. It should be a required read for everyone who would like to know where their otherwise lazy and cynical leftist opponents get their passionate idealistic convictions from.

Here is a condensed list (the full text is here):

1. A collective hallucination can create objective reality.
2. “The fenceless and doorless world is soon to come.” Obviously it’s a good thing.
3. Middle America is stupid and “afraid of youth and the future.”
4. People work not because they’re glad to have a job but because they’re being bullied into working by the “tyranny and suppression of the capitalists.” (Karl Marx called and left a message).
5. Immature youth are “the aware ones”; traditional education and thought discipline is the enemy.
6. Material reality is evil.
7. “Come together rather than claim independence.”
8. “Feel rather than think.”
9. Immature and irresponsible behavior is a virtue.
10. Possessions are immoral. “Any possession that is more than what you need belongs to someone who needs it.”
11. A worldwide revolution (“progress”) is inevitable, and such a future “cannot be anything but brightness.”
12. To resist the revolution is immoral because it prolongs people’s suffering.
13. A society based on competitiveness and logic produces “hypocrisy, violence, and chaos.”
14. A society based on love rather than reasoning will produce “balance, peace, and contentment.”
15. To remove evil from this world men must be feminized (if you liked this one you will also like “The DaVinci Code” which is a 500-pages-long regurgitation of this very doctrine).

Absurdities may be a good material for rock lyrics, but presented as a life philosophy they are, well, absurd. Nonetheless, in the absence of logic and reason whose use had been abolished by liberal education, this psychobabble has become Holy Scripture of the new “progressive” religion. John’s fame and his unfortunate martyrdom have turned these mind games into unquestionable prophecies. They might as well be called the Gospel of John and Yoko, from which generations of protesters have been religiously drawing their strength and moral fortitude. Can you say, “Imagine no religion?”

I imagine I can WRITE like this one day. Until then, however, I can only copy and paste and hopefully someone else will enjoy his (her?) work.

I should never have read Pandragon

She is still at it. Now, lumping the God Hates Fags morons with ALL Christians and uses that hate group as a representative sampling of Christianity.

Sorry. You do not get it. This is a marginal group, basically one family, that no church condones or supports and is condemned by most Christians. But, she paints ALL Christians with this brush.

You don’t get special snowflake status when you hide behind religion as an excuse to deny women contraception, deride and mock religious minorities, spread hatred and vitriol about the LBGT community, and try to codify law to fit with Christianity’s view of the world.

Talk that kind of trash, and don’t expect flowers and candy in return. That’s all I’m saying. Dish it out. learn to take it, and stop your bleating. It’s pathetic. You don’t get to call people in the LBGT community “evil” and “perverted” and not be called out for being hateful. You don’t get to call women who use contraception or who get abortions murderers and selfish and not be called out for being hateful. You don’t get to use fake pregnancy crisis centers to browbeat women into having babies they don’t want and not get regarded as bullies. You don’t get to sniff about the brown-skinned terrorists and not get called to account. You don’t get to blather on about how unbelievers are going to hell, and how Jews control Hollywood, and not get criticized for it. You don’t get to push for discriminatory legislation and be free from criticism.

And then there is this lovely post:

The answer to all the people commenting and emailing me and asking why I’m so angry and what’s wrong with me. She thinks she is a victim and identifies with the poor. Groovy.

So what is wrong with this woman? Let's ask the doctor: Dr Sanity [emphasis mine]

Most Americans who are not indoctrinated into the Marxist worldview and obsessed with victimhood can clearly see the real progress of Blacks and women--indeed all minority groups-- in all aspects of society. They can appreciate individuals from those groups who forged into previously restricted areas and broke barrier after barrier, even if they are not Democrats or subscribers to leftist theories.

Not only did the liberal left exhibit almost complete blindness and fail to celebrate its greatest success , but they became more and more strident in their demands and denunciations of American society as a whole. This entire process coincided with their increasing irrelevance and loss of political power. In response, the left is trying to change the playing field to insure that they remain relevant by switching from demands for "equal opportunity" to an insistance on "equal outcome". Since it is impossible to achieve the latter--except in a totalitarian society, where everyone is made equally miserable; or in death itself--the left hopes to achieve new power and influence over a neverending victim class that they will have created through their policies. The paranoid style conveniently defends those policies and effortlessly maintains their defective worldview.

Of course, calling someone "paranoid", or insinuating that they have a "paranoid style" is definitely pejorative. Being paranoid has, as Hofstadter notes, "a greater affinity for bad causes than good ones." This is primaril because the paranoid--even when their cause has some merit--is actually trying to delude himself about some inner reality at the expense of, or detriment to, the cause. Their motivation is no longer about the cause anymore; it is about protecting themselves from an unpleasant reality that is making them question their foundations.

Any who oppose the "equality of outcome" logic are descibed as "racist". Those who disagree with them are "trying to shut down free speech" (watch and see whose behavior actually physically attempts to silence others). Those who point out the errors in their thinking are "evil". American society--arguably the freest and most tolerant in the world--becomes the source of all oppression and evil. This growing attitude condensed itself into an insane and irrational hatred for one man who came to symbolize their worst fear -- that their image of themselves was no longer true, but had become a well-loved and cultivated delusion. I mean, if GW Bush could be elected President (not once, but TWICE); and be considered the liberator of literally millions of people--what were they? Chopped liver?

Read it all.

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

Oy. From DrudgeI found a link to this pathetic article. Let's begin shall we? Emphasis mine throughout.

51% of Women Are Now Living Without Spouse

So a man isn't a man, but a spouse? Women are women but men are no longer men.

For what experts say is probably the first time, more American women are living without a husband than with one, according to a New York Times analysis of census results.

Women are not wives but men are husbands. Got it.

In 2005, 51 percent of women said they were living without a spouse, up from 35 percent in 1950 and 49 percent in 2000.

Ok we get it, we GET IT. Men are unnecessary.

Coupled with the fact that in 2005 married couples became a minority of all American households for the first time, the trend could ultimately shape social and workplace policies, including the ways government and employers distribute benefits.

How so? Why should the government intrude? Ohhhhhhhh so we can accommodate a variety of "lifestyles"? Government benefits? Why would single people require that? Single, free, unfettered people not hindered by that evil of evils, marriage?

Several factors are driving the statistical shift. At one end of the age spectrum, women are marrying later or living with unmarried partners more often and for longer periods. At the other end, women are living longer as widows and, after a divorce, are more likely than men to delay remarriage, sometimes delighting in their newfound freedom.

Partners? Are they men or women? Perhaps cats? And why add the qualifier "delighting in their newfound freedom"? Widows are free? If my husband passed away I would be grieving not delighting.

In addition, marriage rates among black women remain low. Only about 30 percent of black women are living with a spouse, according to the Census Bureau, compared with about 49 percent of Hispanic women, 55 percent of non-Hispanic white women and more than 60 percent of Asian women.

And what does this tell us, breaking down the statistics by race? The authors just throw this in for no apparent reason or provide further analysis.

In a relatively small number of cases, the living arrangement is temporary, because the husbands are working out of town, are in the military or are institutionalized. But while most women eventually marry, the larger trend is unmistakable.

Military or insane asylum? Is that what the authors are saying? Goes right along with the liberal theme of joining the military ONLY if you are crazy. Or lazy. Or stupid.

“This is yet another of the inexorable signs that there is no going back to a world where we can assume that marriage is the main institution that organizes people’s lives,” said Prof. Stephanie Coontz, director of public education for the Council on Contemporary Families, a nonprofit research group. “Most of these women will marry, or have married. But on average, Americans now spend half their adult lives outside marriage.”

Marriage. (Insert Peter Cook's voice from The Princess Bride here.) "The legal union of a man and woman as husband and wife." This is one of the definitions from the American Heritage Dictionary. Marriage organizes our lives? Yup. That is why I married my husband, to get organized. And the first half of that expression is "most women" and then right after, Americans. What about most men? How do they feel? Do they want to get married or does this group only research the horrifying effects of marriage on women. The first link from their website goes to Alternatives to Marriage Project. This group is studying not just families but contemporary families. What is that? What is that definition? Well, the esteemed Professor offers this nugget of advice:

How to stay married
Stephanie Coontz
As married couples become a minority, our correspondent argues that the best way to keep a marriage strong and healthy is to retain a close network of friends

No mention of family, church, God, or anything resembling a traditional marriage and family.

Professor Coontz said this was probably unprecedented with the possible exception of major wartime mobilizations and when black couples were separated during slavery.

William H. Frey, a demographer with the Brookings Institution, a research group in Washington, described the shift as “a clear tipping point, reflecting the culmination of post-1960 trends associated with greater independence and more flexible lifestyles for women.”

Without marriage we have greater independence? Where is that written? How does that work?

“For better or worse, women are less dependent on men or the institution of marriage,” Dr. Frey said. “Younger women understand this better, and are preparing to live longer parts of their lives alone or with nonmarried partners. For many older boomer and senior women, the institution of marriage did not hold the promise they might have hoped for, growing up in an ‘Ozzie and Harriet’ era.”

Yes, when I want an informed opinion on marriage, the first group of people I am going to go are young, inexperienced, unmarried women. Perhaps these women have been indoctrinated by people like these authors.

Emily Zuzik, a 32-year-old musician and model who lives in the East Village of Manhattan, said she was not surprised by the trend.

“A lot of my friends are divorced or single or living alone,” Ms. Zuzik said. “I know a lot of people in their 30s who have roommates.”

Ms. Zuzik has lived with a boyfriend twice, once in California where the couple registered as domestic partners to qualify for his health insurance plan. “I don’t plan to live with anyone else again until I am married,” she said, “and I may opt to keep a place of my own even then.”

Linda Barth, a 56-year-old magazine editor in Houston who has never married, said, “I used to divide my women friends into single friends and married friends. Now that doesn’t seem to be an issue.”

Sheila Jamison, who also lives in the East Village and works for a media company, is 45 and single. She says her family believes she would have had a better chance of finding a husband had she attended a historically black college instead of Duke.

“Considering all the weddings I attended in the ’80s that have ended so very, very badly, I consider myself straight up lucky,” Ms. Jamison said. “I have not sworn off marriage, but if I do wed, it will be to have a companion with whom I can travel and play parlor games in my old age.”

Carol Crenshaw, 57, of Roswell, Ga., was divorced in 2005 after 33 years and says she is in no hurry to marry again.

“I’m in a place in my life where I’m comfortable,” said Ms. Crenshaw, who has two grown sons. “I can do what I want, when I want, with whom I want. I was a wife and a mother. I don’t feel like I need to do that again.”

Similarly, Shelley Fidler, 59, a public policy adviser at a law firm, has sworn off marriage. She moved from rural Virginia to the vibrant Adams Morgan neighborhood of Washington, D.C., when her 30-year marriage ended.

“The benefits were completely unforeseen for me,” Ms. Fidler said, “the free time, the amount of time I get to spend with friends, the time I have alone, which I value tremendously, the flexibility in terms of work, travel and cultural events.”

Not one currently married woman quoted, not one man. Not one opposing example.

Among the more than 117 million women over the age of 15, according to the marital status category in the Census Bureau’s latest American Community Survey, 63 million are married. Of those, 3.1 million are legally separated and 2.4 million said their husbands were not living at home for one reason or another.

That brings the number of American women actually living with a spouse to 57.5 million, compared with the 59.9 million who are single or whose husbands were not living at home when the survey was taken in 2005.

Some of those situations, which the census identifies as “spouse absent” and “other,” are temporary, and, of course, even some people who describe themselves as separated eventually reunite with their spouses.

Over all, a larger share of men are married and living with their spouse — about 53 percent compared with 49 percent among women.

Ok, so are they saying the more men than women are married? How does THAT compute?

“Since women continue to outlive men, they have reached the nonmarital tipping point — more nonmarried than married,” Dr. Frey said. “This suggests that most girls growing up today can look forward to spending more of their lives outside of a traditional marriage.”

Pamela J. Smock, a researcher at the University of Michigan Population Studies Center, agreed, saying that “changing patterns of courtship, marriage, and that we are living longer lives all play a role.”

Who is changing the patterns and why, pray tell. Who benefits from this change?

“Men also remarry more quickly than women after a divorce,” Ms. Smock added, “and both are increasingly likely to cohabit rather than remarry after a divorce.”

I cannot imagine why. Maybe the men know something these clueless people do not. That marriage works.

The proportion of married people, especially among younger age groups, has been declining for decades. Between 1950 and 2000, the share of women 15-to-24 who were married plummeted to 16 percent, from 42 percent. Among 25-to-34-year-olds, the proportion dropped to 58 percent, from 82 percent.

“Although we can help people ‘do’ marriage better, it is simply delusional to construct social policy or make personal life decisions on the basis that you can count on people spending most of their adult lives in marriage,” said Professor Coontz, the author of “Marriage, a History: How Love Conquered Marriage.”

Oh that book sounds like a real page turner.

Besse Gardner, 24, said she and her boyfriend met as college freshmen and started living together last April “for all the wrong reasons” — they found a great apartment on the beach in Los Angeles.

“We do not see living together as an end or even for the rest of our lives — it’s just fun right now,” Ms. Gardner said. “My roommate is someone I’d be thrilled to marry one day, but it just doesn’t make sense right now.”

Ms. Crenshaw said that some of the women in her support group for divorced women were miserable, but that she was surprised how happy she was to be single again.

“That’s not how I grew up,” she said. “That’s not how society thinks. It’s a marriage culture.”

And so now you are counter-culture? Hip and cool?

Elissa B. Terris, 59, of Marietta, Ga., divorced in 2005 after being married for 34 years and raising a daughter, who is now an adult.

“A gentleman asked me to marry him and I said no,” she recalled. “I told him, ‘I’m just beginning to fly again, I’m just beginning to be me. Don’t take that away.’ ”

“Marriage kind of aged me because there weren’t options,” Ms. Terris said. “There was only one way to go. Now I have choices. One night I slept on the other side of the bed, and I thought, I like this side.”

She said she was returning to college to get a master’s degree (her former husband “didn’t want me to do that because I was more educated than he was”), had taken photography classes and was auditioning for a play.

“Once you go through something you think will kill you and it doesn’t,” she said, “every day is like a present.”

Imagine that. Women gleefully cheering having no man in their lives. Did it ever occur to one of these women that no man would have such harpies?

Well, how about an OPPOSING point of view, just for kicks.

The American founders were also very intent on the idea of the self-governing couple raising children to be self-governing citizens. To this day, marriage and wealth are interconnected. Married men make more money than unmarried men, controlling for race, education, and just about every widely measured variable. Seventy percent of American households own their own home; most of them are married couples.

According to a study comparing married couples and divorced and single individuals, the average net wealth of married couples increases 16% a year; after 15 years, their net worth is 93% higher than divorced and singles. That's why I say that marriage - the social institution, rather than the personal relationship - helps us understand disturbing trends in inequality and immobility.

...

But there is also no doubt that the unmarriage revolution was in large measure a product of dubious ideas. Idealists of the 1960's imagined that if you could free individuals from traditional modes of being and traditional institutions, they could experience life more directly, more "ecstatically" as Hillary Clinton put it in her famous Wellesley graduation speech. Adding to the anti-marriage movement was the belief among feminists that marriage was the source of female inequality.

As for me and my house, we will keep our marriage, thank you. I do not want your "freedom".