Real Time Host Bill Maher and His Panel Agree with Controversial ObamaCare Architect Jonathan Gruber That Americans Are “Stupid”

On his show this past Friday (which aired at 10 p.m. EST which is my time zone), Real Time‘s Bill Maher and his panel, with the strong exception of Canadian Parliamentarian Chrystia Freeland, brought up the ruckus surrounding uproarious ObamaCare brains and architect Jonathan Gruber, who stated in three videos on YouTube, that the average American voter is “stupid” – or ill-informed – because he or she votes for politicians who gives them a Frankstein creation of a combined private and government health care system known simply as ObamaCare a.k.a. the Patient Protect and Affordable Care Act of 2010. Gruber, in three separate videos YouTube video composited as one, stated the following:

Of course conservatives like Kathleen Parker and Avrik Roy of Forbes were outraged over them. Print media sites like the conservative Washington Times clobbered him for making that statement.

But was Gruber right or wrong?

In my estimation, he was both. He was right because Americans do vote for politicians who will give them government programs and “promised benefits” and allow the State to take over their very lives if they feel as if they can benefit from the system via their tax “government”-funded dollars. On the other hand, he was wrong because Americans weren’t “stupid” when they were told by Obama and his crapitalist cronies that patients who wanted to keep their doctors and insurance plans would be able to do so (when they truly weren’t), whose health care premiums and costs would go down (except that they have been spiking upwards and in 2015 are expected to go up again), the exchanges in over 24 states would be online and available (another convenient lie because the ObamaCare website was down immediately on the day of its grand opening on October 1, 2013), and all conditions would be covered (not if the costs of both the premiums, deductibles, and out-of-pocket costs remain astronomically high). Because of the fact that Gruber and his crapitalist cronies lied to the American public, no, in that context Americans are not stupid.

Here is what Bill Maher and his minions had to say about Gruber’s statement. And yes, Maher and his panelists, except for Freeland, agree with Gruber on it as well:

Muslims 4 Liberty’s Awesome Appearance at PorcFest

Here’s Muslim 4 Liberty‘s awesome appearance at Porcfest this year. Will Coley was there, and he did such a great service for his Muslim community and for the Liberty movement as a whole.

The joining of Islam and Liberty at this event shows that Muslims are neither violent nor militant entirely, even not at all.

Illume Magazine wrote and published a great article on M4L’s work at the festival grounds.

Conservative Republican Hit Woman – Ahem, Author and Pundit – Ann Coulter Tells Fox Business’s John Stossel That She Wants “to Drown Him” Over His Support for Libertarian “Spoilers” in General Elections

Conservative Republican hit woman – ahem, author and pundit – Ann Coulter recently appeared on Fox Business‘s Stossel to attack show host John Stossel and other libertarians like him for supporting and voting for Libertarian candidates and voting against Republicans in the mid-term election this year because of Republicans’ refusal to radically shrink the cost, size, and scope of the State. Not surprised, right? After all, mouthpieces for the big GOP establishment like Coulter are nothing new in the world of GOP politics, except that her knee-jerk reactionary ideology gets the best of her when she makes ludicrous statements in print as well as on television, especially Fox News and Fox Business. It’s even worse – and funnier might I add – when you see her cobwebbed conservative Republican face on Real Time with Bill Maher every now and then. It’s worse for her to make a fool of herself on paper and on the airwaves.

Stossel’s reference to Coulter wanting to drown libertarians like him is due to a piece that Coulter wrote in her nationally-syndicated column, specifically a September 17th piece entitled “Your ‘To Do’ List to Save America,” in which, at the end of her article, she writes:

The biggest current danger for Republicans is that idiots will vote for Libertarian candidates in do-or-die Senate elections, including Kentucky, Kansas, North Carolina and Colorado. (That’s in addition to the ‘Independent’ in Kansas who’s a Democrat.) Democratic candidates don’t have to put up with this crap — they’re even trying to dump the official Democrat in Kansas to give the stealth Democrat a better shot.

When we’re all dying from lack of health care across the United States of Mexico, we’ll be deeply impressed with your integrity, libertarians.

What an arrogant, pompous idiot she is, considering that she supports establishment Republicans who want to grow the cost, size, and scope of the State as much as the Democrats do, just only a bit slower might I say.

And then here’s the grand finale to her non-sequitor argument against libertarians voting for capital (L) Libertarians:

Which brings me to my final assignment this week: If you are considering voting for the Libertarian candidate in any Senate election, please send me your name and address so I can track you down and drown you.

Really, Coulter? You really want to go down there? Have you forgotten that you came to the Libertarian Party of Connecticut in 1999 because you wanted to run for Congress under my party’s banner? Must I also point out that the Connecticut Libertarians turned you down – and rightfully so! – because they discovered that your real reason for running for office was to take away votes from then-Republican congressman Chris Shays as an act to punish him for not voting to impeach then-President Bill Clinton over his politicized and sexualized affair with Monica Lewinsky? Of course, your pathetically preposterous social conservative views had a great deal to do with it, considering you think we Libertarians “obsess” over drug legalization (a la ending the War on Drugs) that you’ve been spoon-feeding your bullshit socially and politically conservative views on that matter and other private matters to the American electorate and viewers for far so long? How about that, Ann? Or have we already forgotten about that? Selective memory you must have, right?

After all, in your September 25, 2000 syndicated article “I’d Burn My Neighbor’s House Down” explains in full detail about the fact that you were trying to run a “sham campaign” – in other words, a fraudulent congressional campaign race – against Shays (once again I say this because he was a Republican congressman!) at the time because he refused to vote for Clinton’s impeachment, and your “campaign” was only contrived and orchestrated to put a Democrat in Shay’s seat.

Here’s the entire piece for everyone to read about what you did in 1999:


I’d burn down my neighbor’s house

Ann Coulter

9/25/2000 12:00:00 AM – Ann Coulter
I did everything I could, and it’s not my fault. As a legal resident of the noble Fourth District of Connecticut — once represented by glamorous, brilliant, smart aleck Claire Booth Luce, and currently represented by a phony, ponderous, hand-wringing pantywaist — I tried to take out the pantywaist. For those of you who don’t have Irish Alzheimer’s (we forget everything but our grudges), Rep. Chris Shays was one of only five Republicans to vote against the impeachment of a lying, felonious, contemptible president; one of only two Republicans to go on a whirlwind grandstanding campaign against the impeachment of the lying, felonious, contemptible president; and the only Republican called on by Rep. John Conyers on the day of the vote to argue against impeachment of a lying, felonious, contemptible president. I didn’t run in the primary against Shays because, as a writer, I’d have to give up my livelihood to do so. If I were a dentist, I could continue to remove molars while campaigning against Shays; as a writer, I’d have to abandon my career the moment I announce. I’ll give up a month or two for a grudge match, but not six, seven or eight.

Moreover, an excellent Connecticut Republican, Jim Campbell, did step up to the plate to oppose the pantywaist, offering Nutmeggers the enticing prospect not only of being a Republican, but also of representing the district rather than The New York Times. No one had ever heard of Campbell. He emerged from nowhere, and the principleless Connecticut Republican Party establishment was dead-set against him. (If Joseph Stalin called himself a Republican and ran for office in Connecticut, he’d have the full backing of the state party apparatchiks.) Still, Campbell took about 40 percent of the vote from Shays. Though I wasn’t willing to sacrifice my profession (and life) for the absolute minimum six months it would have required to run in a primary, I was willing to forsake my profession (and life) for about six weeks simply to achieve the greater glory of causing Shays to lose. My idea was that I’d run a total sham, media-intensive, third-party Jesse Ventura campaign for one month before the election, and hope for enough votes to cause the (official) Democrat to win. I just needed to find a third party that would have me. Since I hate the government, and the Libertarians hate the government, I figured — that’s my party. Except the thing is, the Libertarians’ opposition to government is narrowly focused on only one small aspect of government: the drug laws. Until several weeks of negotiations with the Connecticut Libertarian Party over its pro-drug legalization stance, my position on drugs was to refuse even to discuss drug legalization until I don’t have to pay for the food, housing, transportation and medical care of people who want to stay home all day shooting up heroin. It’s not as if we live in the perfect Libertarian state of nature, with the tiny exception of those pesky drug laws. We live in a Nanny State that takes care of us from cradle to grave and steals half our income. I kept suggesting to them that we might want to keep our eye on the ball here. (The Libertarians’ other big issue is privatizing Yosemite. Seriously.) In theory, our areas of agreement should have included, among other things: eliminating the Department of Health and Human Services, eliminating the Department of Education, eliminating the Department of Commerce, eliminating the National Endowment of the Arts, eliminating the National Endowment for the Humanities, eliminating the Department of Agriculture, eliminating the Department of Housing and Urban Development, eliminating the Department of Transportation, eliminating the progressive income tax and instituting a flat tax. Our sole area of disagreement was whether to abolish the drug laws before or after completing the above tasks. That wasn’t enough. I was deemed not a “true Libertarian” because my position was to defer the drug legalization issue until we had made a little more headway in dismantling the Nanny State. There’s a joke about a Frenchman, an Englishman and a Russian who are told they have only one day until the end of the world. The Frenchman says he will spend his last day with a bottle of Bordeaux and a beautiful woman. The Englishman says he will take his favorite sheepdog for a walk across the moors. The Russian says he will burn down his neighbor’s house. I’m with the Russian. Consequently, I have moved from being completely uninterested in drug legalization to being virulently, passionately opposed to it. So I’m initiating a periodic series of articles on the stupidity of drug legalization — it’s my newest Irish Alzheimer’s.

Here’s Coulter’s appearance on Stossel. You’ll see how fruity this bitch really is!

Ann Coulter, go jump off a cliff! We don’t need your moronic lectures, the world doesn’t need you, and nobody needs you. You are the problem, not the solution. What part of that will you not get at all? A blonde statist like you really lives up to the “dumb blonde” stereotype very well, not to mention the fact that you are a soulless political cash whore with an axe to grind against us Libertarians. You are definitely more like a typical Democrat (with very few minute differences) than you will ever concede to being and admit. You are Lady Liberty’s worst enemy, not her best ally. Remember that, bitch!

I rest my frickin’ case if everyone doesn’t mind me saying so!

Newsweek Foreign Policy Analyst (and Awful Muslim Speaker on Behalf of Islam) Rula Jebreal Versus Bill Maher

Rula Jebreal, Newsweek‘s very own Italian-Palestinian foreign policy analyst and a self-described “secular Muslim,” appeared on HBO‘s Real Time with Bill Maher, in which she gets into a heated altercation with host Bill Maher over his invitation to Berkeley University where he is supposed to go and issue his commencement speech to the school’s students who are graduating from the university. Of course a number of Berkeley students set up a petition at to disinvite Maher over his bigoted, anti-Muslim comments which he is known for making. This comes on the heels of his assertions he made about Islam to actor Ben Affleck and author and blogger Sam Harris on his show, who were all in a heated debate with each other on whether or not the religion is a threat and made up of violent worshiping thugs.

Jebreal is an awful representative of the Muslim community. As Will Coley, the National Director of Muslims 4 Liberty, put it to me in private, on Real Time, she turned an entire debate into a “you’re-so-mean-to-Muslims” argument rather than arguing on the facts and merits of the spirituality and religiosity of the Muslim faith as well as the illogic of Maher’s bigoted view that all Muslims are wanna-be Jihadists and members of ISIS and want to forcibly convert everyone to Islam.

Maher ranted to the students of Berkeley in which he excoriated them for inviting and then disinviting him because of his bigoted views after his spat with Affleck on the show. Maher quotes religious Muslim scholar (and political commentator) Reza Azlan as having said in a HuffPost Live interview:

[Bill Maher’s] not a bigot. I know him.

(It’s interesting Azlan says this about Maher, when a month ago on CNN he referred to Maher as “not being very sophisticated” on Islam and “having facile arguments” about it.)

I don’t know about anyone else, but Maher was using generalizations about a particular religion which happens to be Islam. Isn’t that “the definition of bigotry” as Azlan pointed out on that CNN show?

It sounds like Azlan has done an about-face on this matter because of his cozy relationship with Maher (who is more or less a Zionist comedian because of his militant Jewish heritage and atheist beliefs).

Furthermore, Jebreal and the “heated” exchange that transpired during the course of the so-called “debate” on the program shows how idiotic her rationale is and what a bigot Maher is:

Of course, the entire unfriendly exchange didn’t end there. At the near end of the Real Time Overtime after-show, Maher and Jebreal kept it going at full blast:

The anti-freedom and anti-Islam machine continues unabated with Maher, Harris, and their paternalistic thugs at the helm.

Update (11-05-2014): Here are Rula Jebreal and Bill Maher “making up” backstage after the show:

Rula Jebreal and Bill Maher Make up Clip - November 1, 2014

The HollaBack Video of Actress Shoshana B. Roberts Walking on the Streets Experiencing Street Harassed for Ten Hours Is Proof of the Sexual Politics of Limousine Liberal Feminists

[This is taken from my Facebook post (which has been altered on this website to include the URLs as links in the paragraphs as well as a correction on feminist author Andrea Dworkin’s status as she passed away in 2005), which I think will ignite the ire and fires from my limousine liberal and statist critics as well as the left-libertarian and libertarian “feminists” ones as well. My post was originally made at 8:41 p.m. EST on October 31, 2014.]

I realize that I haven’t made any comments whatsoever about this YouTube that has been spreading virally within the last few days, so I’m here to correct that once and for all.

After watching this video (h/t to Christopher Cantwell, even though I’ve seen it shared on Facebook and just about everywhere else), some thoughts came to mind:

1. The woman in the video who was being “catcalled” through the entire 1 minute and 56 seconds was looking to be catcalled because she set up the video so that she can be easily catcalled in every corner of the street. I’m supposing this video was shot in downtown New York City because it looks like it was.

To make matters worse, limousine liberals are acting like what Cantwell perfectly describes as “cannibals” because of the explosive nature and content of the video, pushing in favor of the argument that it ought to be crime in NYC to make compliments to an attractive yet overweight female (exactly as her body weight shows her to be) because she erroneously believes that it’s sexual harassment and that she has the “right” to the privilege of *NOT* being catcalled on the street. Of course that’s a bullshit argument, but try telling that to a limousine liberal feminist like Gloria Steinem, supporters for the late Andrea Dworkin, or The Vagina Monologues playwright Eve Ensler.

2. The Cathy Reisenwitzs and the Gina Luttrells of the world would have you believe that this woman, actress Shoshana B. Roberts, is a victim of “rape culture” because all men are “creeps” who are desperately “trying *VERY* hard to rape her,” “cop a feel,” or whatever excuse seems to be popular in the day. Of course, that’s an unadulterated bullshit allegation made against all men in our society, but hey – in a feminists’ eyes, all men’s rights must be sacrificed on the altar of female beauty privilege because all men are evil, are misogynistic, are sexist, and only want women for sex, and that’s it.

Has it occurred to Ms. Roberts and her feminist pals in the limousine liberal movement that the men in the video were just making compliments and weren’t trying so hard to grab Roberts’ tits and ass in the video or tried to, short of rape, sexually assault her? They were paying a lot of attention to her because she wanted them to notice and look at her, not because she wasn’t asking for it, which she truly was all along. If she didn’t want to be given any compliments at all, she shouldn’t have spent 10 hours of walking the streets of New York City arousing attention which she successfully had done.

3. If she were filmed walking the streets of New York City with catcalls coming from every direction, why didn’t the filmmakers of the video – Hollaback! – put up the entire 10 hours worth of footage? Why won’t they do that, as a petition on made that point exactly as I did? There is allegedly suppressed footage of these catcalls, which makes me wonder about the credibility of the entire 10-hour video to begin with and whether it actually exists at all!

Here’s the petition posted on the website.

4. To the non-white limousine liberals, the video also personifies racism in the city’s neighborhood, because mostly non-white male commentators to white female Roberts’ looks were doing the catcalling. As Cantwell stated eloquently:

To race realists, this probably didn’t come as too big of a surprise. To white liberals who have never visited a black or Hispanic neighborhood, however, this is racism.

You can read the rest of Cantwell’s piece at his website here.

But considering most of the residents in that city are whites with a small population count being black, Hispanic, and other minorities, it’s been suggested, or seems to be suggested, by Cantwell and his friends in the liberty movement that white males might have been catcalling Roberts just as well. But the lack of the over-9 hour video footage that’s been left out of the 1 minute and 56-second YouTube seems to suggest that there is more than meets the eye here, and that most of the comments seem to be compliments (and not “sexual harassments”) by both whites and non-whites alike.


5. published a piece titled here.

In that article, two things were noted (I will respond to every quoted point before I go on to the next one):

This doesn’t mean that the video doesn’t still effectively make its point: that a woman can’t walk down the street lost in her own thoughts, that men feel totally free to demand her attention and get annoyed when she doesn’t respond, that a woman can’t be at ease in public spaces in the same way a man can.

The way I see it, that’s a ridiculous cop-out and a pathetic excuse to make. A woman can walk down the street being lost in her own thoughts, and, if someone makes some nice, thoughtful comments to her or is rude to her on the street, she can either respond to what the guy says, or she can just ignore him and continue walking.

The sexual politics in our society has amounted to this:

I’m a woman, and you’re a man. I don’t want to be bothered by the likes of you, Man, and I want to be left alone because my beautiful, attractive body didn’t ask for you to make comments about it to me and my person. Because you said that, you’re either a pervert, a rapist, a male chauvinist pig, a sexist, or all of the above. Therefore, I say there ought to be a law against men making public comments (which are compliments to be honest) to women like me, because we have a ‘right’ *NOT* to be offended and a ‘right’ *NOT* to be complimented on, and a ‘right’ *NOT* to be flirted with and hit on!

But the video also unintentionally makes another point: that harassers are mostly black and Latino, and hanging out on the streets in midday in clothes that suggest they are not on their lunch break. As Roxane Gay tweeted, “The racial politics of the video are fucked up. Like, she didn’t walk through any white neighborhoods?”

Puhhhleeaze! Those “harassers” are just guys who happened to see what they perceive to be an attractive white female strutting on the streets of NYC. So they made some compliments to her. So the fuck what? Why is it okay for women to make nice compliments about men (“Oooooh, those bulging biceps and pretty eyes!”), but when men do it in return, it’s viewed as “sexual harassment”? What the fuck, people!

Except for one woman in my life whom I know, most of the “fairer sex” are just fucking retarded idiots!

For fuck’s sake, we’re not looking to grab women, push them into an alley because of our allegedly uncontrollable penises are urging us to do so, pull their pants down and bust open their bras, and have sex with them in dark alleys so we can have our way with them. We’re just making compliments. That’s all we’re doing.

To hell with this feminism shit! Women who put on tight outfits just to show off their tits and asses to men and strut their bodies like hot hookers on a hot Sunday are making their cause look bad and hurts the foundations for society and dating in our society. Women who behave like sluts, act like sluts, and have sex with multiple men (who are no better in this entire game as well) might as well be sluts.

As the old saying goes, “If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and walks like a duck, then it must be a duck.”

Same philosophy applies to women too!