Lost in the Ben Affleck debate with Bill Maher: Batman refused to say ‘endowed by our Creator’

Ben Affleck Bill MaherBen Affleck made national news in early October when he nearly broke down crying during a debate with Bill Maher and Sam Harris over Islam. In my rush to cover his petulant behavior I completely glossed over one important detail — Mr. Affleck refused to say that all men were “endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights.” He corrected himself as the “Cr” came out of his mouth to say our “forefathers” were the source of our rights. The implications of such an edit to our history are profound, and give insight into the liberal mind that must be exposed.

The exchange went as follows:

Bill Maher: “Why are you so hostile about this concept?”

Ben Affleck: “Because it’s gross! It’s racist! It’s like saying ‘you shifty Jew.’”

Bill Maher: You’re not listening to what we are saying.”

Ben Affleck: You guys are saying, if want be liberals believe in liberal principles. That’s freedom of speech. Like we are endowed by our Cr-forefathers with certain inalienable rights. All men are created equal.

Sam Harris: No, Ben. We have to be able to criticize bad ideas.

Ben Affleck: Of course we do. No liberal doesn’t want you to criticize bad ideas.

Here is an excerpt of what the U.S. Declaration of Independence actually says:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

If your rights are doled out to you according to the auspices of men, then they can be altered at any time. If your rights are something that is a part of your being — a gift from an eternal Creator who always was, is, and will be — no one can take them from you. Ever.

The heart of liberalism beats with tyrannical blood. A true liberal activist denies God because, whether he realizes it or not, he wants to play God.

If your rights come from man — or a small elite group of men — then you will ultimately be forced to worship and adore them as if they were gods. If your rights come from God — the true God — then no man has the moral authority to deny you of your life, liberty or property.

When you couple the woeful state of the U.S. education system with the insidious way liberal actors, politicians, and media all go about trying to divorce Americans from their true history, it is a recipe for disaster. The reason why so many liberals despise the tea party movement is because conservatives and libertarians are acutely aware of America’s true history. They are familiar with the words of James Madison, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay. They’ve read Alexis de Tocqueville. They have copies of the U.S. Constitution in their home and know that our rights come from the Creator.

Ben Affleck reacts viscerally to conservative men because they are roadblocks to tyranny. They stand in the way of the wannabe masters of the universe and their plans to control every aspect of human life — down to the tablespoons of sugar Americans consume every single day.

When we “cling” to God there is no need to latch on to the empty promises of politicians. When we “cling” to guns, we can more easily fulfill our right — our duty — to “throw off” a tyrannical government if necessary. All patriotic Americans pray that the day never comes where prudence demands such extreme measures, but that still does not change the need to vigilantly defend liberty.

Carefully watch and listen to actors like Ben Affleck, and you will catch them surreptitiously trying to change America into something that would be completely unrecognizable — abhorrent, actually — to our Founding Fathers. You may not be able to enjoy their movies as much as you used to, but you’ll be doing your own small part to safeguard civil society for future generations.

Editor’s Note: You can watch the video here. Mr. Affleck’s line comes shortly after the 1:50 mark.

Advertisements

Rep. DeLauro: I think poor people are stupid, so let’s tax every teaspoon of sugar purchased

Rosa DeLauro AP

It takes some serious gall for a legislator to turn to British taxes from 1764 for inspiration, but that’s what Rosa DeLauro (D-Conn.), did when she introduced the Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Tax (SWEET Act). The Democrat’s goal: tax every teaspoon of sugar, high fructose corn syrup or caloric sweetener that you buy. The tax would start at one cent per teaspoon of sugar and increase as future masterminds in Washington, D.C. see fit.

Here’s what she had to say regarding the SWEET Act:

“Added sugar is pervasive and almost inescapable at the supermarket. And of course, many times it is the sugary foods and drinks that are the easiest for the families living on the edge of poverty to afford. When a 2 liter cola is 99 cents and blueberries are over $3.00, something has gone very wrong. As [the movie] “Fed Up” shows, this is not just the free market at work. All too often sugary foods or drinks with high fructose are cheaper as a direct result of government polices. It is long past time that we pass and support policies that work to our better health instead,” (Rosa DeLauro, D-Conn.).

With that in mind, I’m working on legislation right now to tax sugar-sweetened drinks, like sodas, in a way that reflects the serious damage they are doing to our health. I hope to introduce legislation in a matter of weeks.”

How does one woman cram so much idiocy into so few words? First off, comparing the economics of blueberries to the economics of soda is just plain weird. It makes just as much sense as saying “When a box of Dunkin Donuts ‘Munchkins’ is $4.99 and a basket of cherries is $9.99, something is wrong.” Apparently the congresswoman has never taken Econ 101. The only thing “wrong” is that there is not a single area of your life — not one — that a woman like Ms. DeLauro believes is off limits to the federal government. If Ms. DeLauro doesn’t like subsidies and tariffs artificially warping sugar prices, then she should focus on getting rid of them — but she doesn’t. Why? The answer is simple: control.

Ms. DeLauro feels as though she should have some amount of say in every teaspoon of sugar you consume, so she goes about creating laws that will allow her that luxury. Those laws must be overseen by men and women who think like her, so a tax is put in place to fund studies, government agencies and bureaucratic overseers. If by some strange chance that tax should happen to curb sugar consumption and cause a budget shortfall for food-policing efforts, then some other group or tax bracket would be called upon to pick up the tab (e.g., “the rich”).

There is something sick and insidious about the individual who perpetually finds new ways to encroach upon the lives of those who just want to be left alone. Such politicians justify their self-described acts of “kindness” without ever stopping to think about how much evil has been inflicted upon the world under the banner of kindness. In a different time and a different place Americans would run Ms. DeLauro out of town, but these days Americans are so used to having individual liberties stripped away by political parasites that they hardly stir from their Netflix or XBox-inspired stupor. Worst of all may be that by allowing legislation like the Affordable Care Act to pass, citizens can expect a litany of new laws in the same vein as the SWEET Act.

Let us, for a moment, go back to the time U.S. District Judge Roger Vinson asked pro-Obamacare attorneys in Florida the following question: “If [lawmakers and regulators] decided everybody needs to eat broccoli because broccoli makes us healthy, could they mandate that everybody has to eat broccoli each week?” His question was completely dodged, but honest people know exactly what he was getting at: laws are being enacted under the presumption that there is no limit to the power granted to the federal government. If you deny this, simply listen to what politicians like Rosa DeLauro say and examine the rules and regulations they tirelessly try to impose upon you.

The Declaration of Independence states:

Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.

People like to joke that Americans are violent people. That is not true — at least as it pertains to individuals who cherish the nation’s founding. Americans would rather suffer endless violations of their civil liberties, doled out like Chinese water torture by 535 members of Congress and the regulatory agencies of the Executive Branch, than to resort to violence. Americans are patient, but there comes a time for everyone when patience runs out. When one sugar tax too many has been passed, Americans will put an end to the long train of abuses of freedom and individual liberty inflicted upon them over the course of many, many years.

Hoyer: Congress ‘has a paying-for problem’ (i.e., Hoyer thinks you’re an idiot)

Steny Hoyer

The United States is closing in on being $17 trillion in debt. Do a little research on just how monumentally huge 1 trillion is. Then come back and read Rep. Steny Hoyer’s reaction to a very simple question:

CNBC Analyst: Does the country have a spending problem sir? Does the country have a spending problem?

Hoyer: Does the country have a spending problem? The country has a paying for problem. We haven’t paid for what we bought, we haven’t paid for our tax cuts, we haven’t paid for war.

CNBC Analyst: How about what we promised? Are we promising too much?

Hoyer: Absolutely. If we don’t pay, we shouldn’t buy.

CNBC Analyst: So how is that different than a spending problem?

Hoyer: Well, we spent a lot of money when George Bush was president of the United States in the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans. We spent a lot of money. (CNBC, February 12, 2013)

Now, I’d like you to read an excerpt from The Declaration of Independence:

“But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

I am a patient man. In fact, I am a very patient man. But, given that we have elected “leaders” who can look at the size of our current debt obligations and unfunded mandates promised to future generations — and still say with a straight face: “we have a paying-for problem,” my patience goes out the window. If I was at a town hall meeting and asked that very same question, and THAT was the answer I received, Mr. Hoyer’s personal security guards might very well have to rip me off the man and haul me to the slammer because I seriously would consider throttling his neck.

These comments come only a day after Nancy Pelosi said that saying the U.S. has a spending problem is a “false argument.”

Let us not get into the fact that a “cut” in Washington is in reality a decision to go deeper into debt at a slower rate than previously agreed upon. Let us not talk about the false logic that the government has to “pay” for tax cuts; it was never the government’s money to begin with. Let us instead focus on the fact that the U.S. is currently run by a bunch of narcissistic clowns who are stealing the wealth of future generations. They are lowering the standard of living for your kids and grandchildren. They are setting the stage for an epic financial meltdown — and they are supposed to be the guardians of future security.

They are not guardians; they are destroyers masquerading as guardians. The lexical b*****it they try to pass off on the American people is breathtaking. And the sad thing is, they’re getting away with it because the “guardians” of our education system and the watchmen in the Fourth Estate decided long ago that it was better to bed the destroyers than to stand up to them in battle.

As I said before: I am a patient man. I am not a violent man. But millions of Americans are not as patient and are not as slow to anger, and if the feelings that bubble up in me when I see Rep. Steny Hoyer make a mockery of the nation’s fiscal insanity are shared by even a small percentage of the population … then there are dark days ahead.

There is a limited amount of time left for elected officials to deal with tsunami of debt coming our way. Its amplitude blocks out the sun. Soon the amplitude on the interest alone will block out the sun. If they don’t get serious — soon — it will break not just on the coastal regions, but on the homes and heads of every single American. And no amount of word games will be able to fend off the riots that take place in its wake.

Confront Moral Relativism and…Do it Live!

Over the past few years we’ve heard a lot about “corporate greed.” Apparently, all those guys inventing technology that raises the standard of living for tens-of-millions of people around the globe are also going to be the cause of America’s ultimate demise. (For those nerds out there, this is like Marvel Comics’ reverse claim that the same serum that killed Harry Osborn…saved him.) But I digress. And I’ll put aside the blog post that explains how it’s really Christmas holiday public policy drops and the ideas floated about by boneheads in Congress that warp market incentives and exacerbate human beings’ base instincts. The market harnesses human “greed” and redirects it in ways that benefit society. For further reading I suggest Dinesh D’Souza’s fabulous book The Virtual of Prosperity: Finding Values in the Age of Techno-Affluence.

Today, I’d like to focus more on what for now I’ll just deem Spiritual Greed. This is something that is much more dangerous to society than a corporate CEO giving himself and his buddies a “golden parachute.” And it’s most-readily planted inside you by the moral relativism espoused by liberals.

If you don’t believe there are objective truths that can be self-evident, you find yourself in a world where fellow Americans actually make the case for a “living Constitution” (or as Thomas Sowell notes, a dying Constitution.

Multi-culturalism, moral relativism, and a me, me, me, mentality pushed by the entertainment industry come together in a toxic soup to produce things like Bush-Hitler elementary school projects, chat room users who encourage suicide like crazed-sideline sports fans, and large swathes of society asserting “all cultures are the same” when that is certainly not the case.

Corporations do have responsibilities to surrounding communities. I don’t dispute that. But when the moral fabric of society falls apart like Weezer’s sweater because its left flank is okay with being a nation of narcissists, they shouldn’t be surprised by the wreckage left behind.

Whenever a liberal politician tries to split the nation into “Two Americas,” – private sector vs. public sector – before demonizing entrepreneurs and businessmen, take a real close look before making any decisions.

I’m not an angel (the Lord knows that). I’ve made my mistakes. But the difference between a liberal and a conservative is that deep down the conservative knows when he’s wrong. The conservative acknowledges that he’s fallible and tries to rise above it. Liberalism, by contrast, encourages you to sit in a cesspool of self indulgence and depravity without even knowing it.

We need to fight this. And all of the outgrowth spawned from it. And we need to do it live.