—–

The death of Christopher Hitchens hits like the 2008 death of Tim Russert. Both were men you really wanted to hear from during  a looming presidential election.

The word being tossed about in reference to the passing of Hitchens is “contrarian,” and that strikes me as a little unfair. Hitchens could be infuriating and even wrong, but there was nothing dishonest or insincere about the man. Though it’s not the perfect definition of contrarian, I don’t believe for a second that Hitchens ever once took a stand simply to be provocative or contrary.

Hitchens was a truth-teller. Whether it was the war in Iraq, Mother Teresa, or Bill Maher’s trained seal audience, Hitchens always told what he believed to be the truth.

It was never as simple as opinion with Hitchens. What he was for or against rose above opinion. Again, he wasn’t always right (especially when it came to Mother Teresa), but his arguments never failed to be so beautifully designed that even when he was wrong, you had to respect the fact that so much study and thought and reasoning went into them.

Hitchens was incapable of lying and of insincerity, which is more complicated than being a contrarian, and that’s why I both admired and respected him.

Besides his battle with cancer, during his final years, Hitchens became most famous for his atheism; going so far as to take the act on the road with a series of highly publicized and very engaging debates. There was something different about Hitchens’ atheism, though. His lack of belief wasn’t a pose,  but at the same time I always felt that his being so open and public and willing to engage on the subject said something more. It wasn’t so much that Hitchens was trying to prove believers wrong as much as he wanted believers to prove him wrong.

“Seek and you will find.”

In his own incomparable way, Hitchens did seek. And if he was wrong about the existence of God (and I believe and hope he was), I’m guessing that counted for something and that we haven’t heard the last from him.

And while it’s pure speculation on my part, based on his juvenile behavior, it appears as if Maher is a disgruntled Catholic trying desperately to convince himself God doesn’t exist; so regardless of how bright he perceives himself to be, Maher lacks the insight to realize that he’s revealing something he’d probably prefer the rest of America not to notice.

For someone as mentally deficient as Maher believes I am, even as far back as the first grade I recognized that there was no direct correlation between parochial school and the personhood of God. Yet for all Maher’s clever innuendo and sarcastic banter, it must go deeper than that, because this man apparently isn’t astute enough to separate Catholicism from God.

Maher was raised by an Irish Catholic father and a mother (Julie, nee Berman) that he was unaware was Jewish until he was a teenager (which right there reeks of family dysfunction). Seems somewhere around the age of 13, when hormone-infused Bill, had he been raised a Jew, might have been practicing his Hebrew to prepare for an upcoming Bar Mitzvah, Maher’s Catholic dad realized birth control was a good idea after all.

Based on Maher’s animosity toward all religion and toward Christianity in particular, one would guess Dad’s gripe with Rome might have impacted his son.

Since then, William Jr., whose parental religious roots are firmly implanted in a Judeo-Christian heritage, has made it a career to get back at God. Try as he might to prove otherwise, Maher’s contempt for Christianity could very well be rooted in his father’s reaction to the Roman Catholic Church’s undying commitment to the rhythm method.

Since the day Maher’s Dad decided pull out of the Catholic Church, any aspirations young Maher had of one day being an altar boy were left lying like a crumpled cassock on the parish Sacristy floor.

Instead, Willy and Julie’s son changed course and chose to fashion what started as a family disagreement over church doctrine into a successful career portraying believers in God as neanderthal nut jobs with nary a brain cell nor a lick of sense.

From age 13 on, English major and 2009 Richard Dawkins Atheist Alliance International award recipient Maher has spent loads of time demeaning what he and an English Lit degree have identified as the Church’s unscientific teachings on homosexuality, abortion and birth control.

Over the years the comedian has transformed into a liberal/apatheist icon who lacks apathy only when it comes to pocketing millions of dollars earned mocking a God he relegates to the same category as unicorns, the tooth fairy, and JLo’s long-lost plan to cook dinner for only one man.

Apatheism is defined as a “disinclination to care all that much about one’s own religion, and an even stronger disinclination to care about other people’s.” Which means Maher is a pretty lame apatheist, because all he does is focus on religion.

What Maher fails to recognize is that his acerbic comments directed toward God make him look like the proverbial spurned middle-school kid with a crush on the head cheerleader. Who knows, maybe besides the birth control brouhaha, somewhere along the line an overbearing nun denied the future comedian a bathroom pass and he never recovered.

What we do know is that Maher behaves like a confused, madly-in-unrequited-love teenager who spends all his energy defacing God’s locker and calling God and His people floozies as payback for some imagined hurt.

Now, almost 50 years later, one would think that for someone who spends his life pointing out the hypocrisy of organized religion and who believes that when it comes to God, “doubt is the only appropriate response for human beings,” Maher would recognize that, in a roundabout way, making a living off something you don’t believe in is similar to attending Mass while practicing off-beat forms of birth control.

So, with that in mind, when Maher mocks Christians, saying “Who needs government when you have Jesus,” or when he produces and stars in a irreverent movie like “Religulous,” his contempt and derision expose a man who, although he sees himself as brilliant, isn’t quite smart enough to recognize the hypocrisy, not to mention the irony, of making a career out of preaching that one person shouldn’t push their religious beliefs on anybody else.

The Hitchens contempt for the Tea Party, however, is the grandest dividing line, largely due to the tea Party’s fervent belief in God and its faith in Sarah Palin whom Hitchens repeatedly heaps fear and loathing on.

Hitchens, however, warns the world to not patronize Sarah Palin!

He points out that his favorite film on American Presidential politics is Gore Vidal’s The Best Man.

With an almost bottomless irony of ironies, he further adds that at one time Ronald Reagan was considered for a role but he was dismissed as “insufficiently Presidential”.

Therein lies the substance of his concerns about Sarah Palin and her Presidential Insufficiency.

It also strengthens my faith in the fact that Sarah Palin will, indeed, be America’s next Ronald Reagan and more.

The “more”, I’m certain, is what most terrifies Christopher Hitchens.

His contempt for America and anything classically American is so deep it makes him blind. He traipses out the history of the 19^th Century Pledge of Allegiance, smugly noting that the words “under God” didn’t reach the Pledge until the 1950’s. He finds it “funny” that Palin cross-referenced the Pledge of the Allegiance with the Declaration of Independence.

“God” reached the Declaration of Independence in the 18^th Century. In that profoundly obvious sense she was totally correct in saying she stands with the Founding Fathers.

A smirking history professor who is also a repeatedly self-described atheist would consider the ultimate truth of her statement irrelevant in the face of her historical liberties.

More the pedant he.

I have no doubt Hitchens knew that when he waxed contemptuous but … well … his fellow atheist, Bill Maher, would have broached the subject of “insufficiency” with fewer words.

Therefore Bill Maher has become the crass but funnier Christopher Hitchens.

From the other point of view, Christopher Hitchens is an eloquent but less entertaining version of Bill Maher:

It’s hard to imagine that there will be any more unwanted pregnancies or shotgun weddings when or if the Palins move to the Naval Observatory on Massachusetts Avenue, whereas with the Clintons, the very thing that made all Bill’s friends turn white and pee green was that they made him the president, and he still wouldn’t stop.

Here, however, comes Hitchens’ own, possibly Marxist justification for pushing the Progressive Panic Button on Sarah Palin:

Walter Dean Burnham, one of the country’s pre-eminent Marxists, used to attract ridicule back in the 1960s and ’70s by saying that Ronald Reagan would one day be president.

Nice to hear Christopher Hitchens and I agree on that same possibility for Sarah Palin, though from profoundly different points of view. One must applaud his absolute consistency as an atheist:

Interviewed by Rick Warren at the grotesque Saddleback megachurch a short while ago, Sen. Barack Obama announced that Jesus had died on the cross to redeem him personally. How he knew this he did not say. But it will make it exceedingly difficult for him, or his outriders and apologists, to ridicule Palin for her own ludicrous biblical literalist beliefs.

There will always be a Christopher Hitchens and Bill Maher to do that.

Here, however, is where Christopher Hitchens hands Sarah Palin a priceless gift for the hoped-for debate she will have as the Republican candidate with President Obama.

 I cannot wait to see Obama and Biden explain how this isn’t the case or how it’s much worse than, and quite different from, Obama’s own raving and ranting pastor in Chicago or Biden’s lifelong allegiance to the most anti-”choice” church on the planet.

Don’t hold back, sir.

The difference, if there is one, is that Palin is probably sincere whereas the Democratic team is almost certainly hypocritical. The same is true of the boring contest over who can be the most populist, and of the positively sinister race to see who can be the most demagogically anti-Washington. With this kind of immaturity right across both tickets, it’s insulting to be asked to decide on the basis of experience, let alone “readiness.”

“The difference, if there is one, is that Palin is probably sincere … “

God bless Christopher Hitchens for knowing that!

“… whereas the Democratic team is almost certainly hypocritical.”

Yes, sir, God bless you!!

God bless Christopher Hitchens, indeed for his own indisputable honesty and lack of hypocrisy!!!

Has Palin Derangement syndrome trumped common decency?

It’s hard to imagine another explanation why groups dedicated to the dignity of people with Down syndrome have been so silent about Maher’s broadside, unleashed during a recent “Real Time with Bill Maher” telecast on HBO.

“And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of ‘The Hills Have Eyes,’ that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true, not because it’s true of a woman.”

For non-horror fans, “The Hills Have Eyes” involves an inbred family feasting on the flesh of innocent travelers.

The New York-based National Down Syndrome Society “does not have a comment on this clip at this time,” says Jordana Stern, the group’s Communications Associate.

Perhaps the NDSS mission statement, which reads, “to be the national advocate for the value, acceptance and inclusion of people with Down syndrome,” is suspended when the attack is launched against Palin’s brood.

This reporter reached out to multiple people in the Down syndrome community for comment on Maher‘s vicious commentary with similar results.

“We are going to stay quiet on this one being that it is specifically politically focused and does not address someone with DS directly, but by association,” said Gail Williamson, Director of Programs and Outreach with the Down Syndrome Association of Los Angeles.

So it‘s game on to verbally taunt someone with Down Syndrome if the person belongs to a political family?

Williamson did point out a protest she did support, assailing an online piece at GQ.com, the offensive part being quickly removed, that compared sloppy fashion choices to Down syndrome.

“Boston suffers from a kind of Style Down Syndrome, where a little extra ends up ruining everything.”

Jennifer Wade Greiner, Program Director with the Down Syndrome Association of Northern Virginia said her board “discussed this issue and decided not to respond at this time,” adding, “We do often weigh in on these kinds of issues.”

People from three other like-minded organizations contacted by Big Hollywood did not respond to a request for comment. The only person to flash any anger over Maher’s statements was Mac Macsovits, executive director of the Mile High Down Syndrome Association in Denver.

“The Mile High Down Syndrome Association stands on the firm belief that individuals with Down syndrome (or any other disability) are capable of achieving great things when given the same opportunities and resources as anyone else. When deprived of their dignity and attacked by so called “comedians” people with disabilities deserve the chance to defend themselves. Unfortunately Maher will never host anyone such as myself, a person with Down syndrome, or the leader of any organization that is in business to promote their abilities instead of the disabilities.”

In today’s culture saying the wrong word at the wrong time can get you in trouble. Often, the outraged parties seem a tad too sensitive, like the imbroglio surrounding the use of the term “gay“ in the trailer for the 2011 comedy “The Dilemma.”

Here, Maher’s comments deserve plenty of outrage. So … where is it?

Would groups like the NDSS be so silent had Rush Limbaugh or Ann Coulter said the very same thing about President Barack Obama’s children? Isn’t that a fair question to ask?

However, President Barack Obama’s latest fundraising report cites an “A-list of Hollywood stars, with donations from some of the top celebrities in the entertainment industry.” Apparently, left-coast liberals want to see to it that the best script reader since Martin Sheen has another shot at practicing lines on set while acting the part of President.

It’s not surprising that Hollywood is smitten with the “Yes We Can” man’s refusal to admit he can’t.  Those in the acting profession are impressed by amateurs like Barry Soetoro (stage name Barack Obama), who has proven to have a professional-level ability to make believe he’s something he is not. Heck, for a season, even Paul Giamatti was convinced he was John Adams.

What could be better for Hollywood than a President who swims around in a policy cesspool similar to the one they refuse to empty in Tinsel Town, overflowing with the squalid water of loose morals, abortion rights, angry feminists, racial indignation, class warfare, and overall elitist hypocrisy?

By and large, actors, comedians and entertainers pride themselves on being pro-choice, pro-gay marriage, pro-free Mumia, pro-promiscuity, and pro-anything non-traditional. Hollywood is full of left-wingers whose “Hope [is to] Change” America into a nation where the likes of Bill Maher and Jane Fonda are symbols of empathy and truth.

The fact that big name stars contribute to Barack Obama’s 2012 reelection bid proves once again that ideological liberals lack intelligence and common sense.  Little do they know that if Obama gets another four years, it’s certain he’ll drive a stake through the heart of the nation that has bestowed fame and fortune on ignorant people who like to play pretend.

It doesn’t take Will Hunting to figure out that people who can’t afford gas and groceries aren’t likely to drop $10 on a movie ticket to watch Julia Roberts fake-giggling while riding on the back of a moped driven by a middle-aged Tom Hanks in a leather jacket.

Yet, despite the inevitable looming catastrophe if Obama is reelected, according to the latest Federal Election Commission report the list of Who’s Who of Obama aficionados includes usual suspects such as Darfur defender George Clooney, Mr. and Mrs. Forrest Gump, and cancer survivor Michael Douglas – a man who would have already succumbed to throat cancer had Obamacare already kicked in.

Campaign contributors also include Schindler’s List director Steven Spielberg and wife Kate Capshaw. The Spielbergs, despite their supposed brilliance, fail to realize they’re supporting a president whose feelings for Israel are at best questionable and whose lack of action could result in the need for another list if an unrestrained Iran eventually has its way.

Another contradictory campaign contributor is newly discovered country singer and proud part-time Londoner, the multifaceted Mrs. Chris “Coldplay” Martin, Gwyneth Paltrow.  Gwyneth likes living in England better than the US, which may be why she decided to punish the colonies by contributing to Obama’s “We Bent the Air Hose in 2008 – Let’s Pull the Plug in 2012” campaign.

Also in the mix is political scene newcomer Jennifer Garner, wife to one of JLo’s many former fiancés, Ben Affleck. When not speaking before Congress on behalf of Save the Children, Garner supports the reelection of a radically pro-choice threat to the lives of millions of unborn children who, thanks to Barack Obama, truly need saving.

Other Obama star contributors include: Monk star Tony Shalhoub, Glee’s Jane Lynch, 24’s president Dennis Haysbert (a man who knows firsthand how to pretend to be a president), and sci-fi star Scott Bakula.  The eclectic group joins cantankerous political wannabe (who should also be in the sci-fi category), 30 Rock actor/über-liberal aspiring NYC mayor Alec Baldwin, who prides himself on being diversified in every area except liberalism.

The July quarterly report for the President’s reelection campaign touts $47 million in donations, while the Democratic National Committee raised $38 million through Obama’s joint committee. According to Barack Obama’s campaign, about 40% of the President’s record-breaking take came from “big-money bundlers” and top Hollywood heavy hitters like Rahm’s sibling Ari Emanuel and Dreamworks CEO Jeffrey Katzenberg.

Obama continues to practice governing the nation with the finesse of a jackhammer operator doing a kidney transplant. Yet, never once have Fruit of the Loom grape man Wayne Wilderson or Brenda Strong of “Desperate Housewives,” colleague of esteemed “brainstorming” border security adviser Eva Longoria, questioned the craven cynicism of demonizing the rich while stuffing Hollywood capital into his campaign coffers.

Seems that even after chastising Americans for failing to “share the wealth,” a selectively philanthropic Barack Obama is more than willing to accept the “additional income” of well-to-do Hollywood supporters, if doing so finances his glitzy billion-dollar bid for reelection that should be coined: Take two.

So once again, America is witnessing the unbridled ignorance of affluent individuals who choose to support a President who decries prosperity but has little trouble siphoning off the wealth of a community too clueless to understand who they’re really supporting and too committed to liberal ideology to really care.

From everything I’ve read, the only factor remaining in Governor Palin’s decision-making process about a 2012 presidential run is the impact the campaign would have on her family — which is why I think Bill Maher went here [emphasis mine]:

Now, I’m not saying that sexism doesn’t exist and isn’t real. And we can’t, but we can’t throw around the word “sexist” just to stop people like me from pointing out that Michele Bachmann, now running second for the Republican presidential nomination, isn’t a dangerous nincompoop. And when I point out that Sarah Palin is a vainglorious braggart, a liar, a whiner, a professional victim, a scold, a know-it-all, a chiseler, a bully who sells patriotism like a pimp, and the leader of a strange family of inbred weirdos straight out of “The Hills Have Eyes,” that’s not sexist. I’m saying it because it’s true, not because it’s true of a woman.

Really, Bill, this is “true?” Who has it in them to look at this photo of Tripp and Trig Palin, two beautiful and perfect children, and make jokes about “inbred weirdos?”

There was a lot of news, outrage and commotion over the weekend over Maher and his panelists ripping Michele Bachman’s husband, the appalling hate f**k comment directed at her, and Maher’s defensiveness when it comes to being called sexist. But from everything I’ve seen — including most of the paragraph quoted above aimed at Governor Palin herself — all of those comments were directed at adults perfectly capable of defending themselves. No one will argue that any and all of those comments were in poor taste, even for a HBO program proud of such things, but the real line that was crossed Friday night was Maher’s astonishingly obscene attack on Sarah Palin’s family — which obviously includes her children.

For all intents and purposes, on national cable television, Bill Maher called a Down Syndrome child an “inbred weirdos straight out of ‘The Hills Have Eyes’”.

This is beyond the beyond and yet we’re hearing nothing about it — even from our side.

You’d probably hear more from our side if someone had launched a similar attack on Barack Obama’s family.

In “The Undefeated,” Andrew Breitbart famously and perfectly labels a Republican establishment — that has for years refused to defend Palin against the most vile attacks, as “eunuchs.” This refusal is mainly due to the fact that they want her destroyed. They’re all well aware of what she did to Alaska’s corrupt, fat, and lazy good ole’ boys’ club and for that reason a “President Palin” terrifies them (and should). 

But what’s most troubling is how too many on our side mostly ignore these constant attacks on Governor Palin’s family — especially her children.

This isn’t just unchivalrous, it’s an act of depraved indifference.

And it gets worse…

For those of you who live the clean life, a “MILF” is a “Mother I’d Like to F—.” Now, you can’t blame Bill Maher for being Bill Maher. In fact, it’s this kind of rabid soundbite that makes him a regular guest on these kinds of shows. But why is he a guest?

Well, if you notice, when Maher refers to Governor Palin and Congresswoman Bachmann as MILFs, Morgan audibly chuckles.

That explains a lot.

Using Bill Maher and Jon Stewart and David Letterman and Tina Fey and other left-wing showbiz types is all part of the MSM’s overall gameplan to personally destroy conservatives. Phase one is elevating left-wing celebrities as serious commentariats by having them on as guests or presenting clips of their work or employing them as permanent hosts of “The View.” Phase two is for the MSM to use their commentary/comedy as a way to practice the politics of personal destruction. Case in point: Maher’s demeaning and diminishing of Sarah Palin and Michele Bachmann — two serious, accomplished, and savvy leaders — into sexual objects. This is nothing more than a different play from the same playbook that found the MSM using Tina Fey’s Palin impersonation over and over and over again until it stuck in the minds of some voters. “Saturday Night Live” has less than 10 million viewers a week. But thanks to the mainstream media’s obsession with destroying Palin, EVERYONE saw Fey’s impersonation.

This is no accident.

What popular culture allows the MSM to do is to push destructive narratives against conservatives (especially women) and then wash their hands of the crime with a shrug and, “Lighten up, it’s just a comedian.”

Obviously, today’s narrative push is to personally destroy Bachmann (and there’s been a three-year push to destroy Palin) — two genuine threats to a failed president’s re-election chances and an existential threat to a Democrat Party that can’t operate with 1% fewer female voters. And so yesterday in the afternoon you had Whoopi Goldberg turning Bachmann’s concern for the destruction of the modern American black family into some kind of racial incident and in the evening you had Maher sexually degrading her.

Narrative. Narrative. Narrative.

As we’re seeing with the Palin documentary “The Undefeated,” as soon as the MSM starts to talk about ideas, positions and records, a politically attractive candidate emerges. Same goes for Rep. Bachmann … and that can never, ever be allowed to happen. Solution: the MSM employs mercenaries from the world of popular culture, elevates them with their brand, and then stands back and lets them say everything they would like to but can’t — if they want to retain their weapon labelled “objectivity.”  

I can hear the Left’s response already. “Well, Fox News puts Greg Gutfeld and Dennis Miller on their primetime shows.” Yes, that’s true. But I’ve never heard either of them stoop to the kind of cruel and dehumanizing  ad hominem we constantly see from the Left.

Regardless, how long do you think Gutfeld and Miller would be around if either one referred to the First Lady as a MILF.

To be clear, Fey, Garofalo, Maher and the rest have every right to say what they want. I have no issue with a comedian being a comedian. That’s what they do. That’s who they are. I may disagree and even personally dislike some of them, but the standards we hold entertainers to is something entirely different from the standards held by the news media.

What I’m seeing, however, is the MSM using the celebrity loophole in order to ignore those standards. In their minds, it helped to put Obama in the White House in ‘08 and might just help to keep the failure in place for a second term.

Credit where it’s due, as usual, to Maher and co. for having her on.  “Real Time” continues to be the only liberal-leaning late-night current events/comedy show eager to engage articulate conservative commentators.

Here are some highlights, starting with Coulter telling MSNBC’s Chris Hayes that his mother, who has a government job, “is a drain on society”:

Next is a long chunk of the round-table discussion where Maher and Coulter’s sardonic repartee takes center-stage.  This is an act they could take on the road (UPDATE: Apparently they have):

And finally, Coulter smacks down Maher saying she only talks to rubes when she’s on his show:

Very witty, as usual.

According to Wikipedia, Jon Stewart currently has about 15 writers working for him to produce the 22-minute “Daily Show” four nights per week.  Watching these clips makes you wonder what Ann Coulter could do with her own show and a team of conservative comedy writers.

She’s written eight(!!!) best-sellers; there is an audience already built in. And if you think Coulter is too controversial or too much of a rabble-rouser to carry her own show, Bill Maher himself likened GOP thinking to the Casey Anthony jury that very show. How’s that for rabble-rousing?

The fact that an Ann Coulter show has never been tried is all you need to know about liberal-bias in Hollywood.

It’s a boldly persuasive way to tear down some chronic hypocrisies and get the stick-in-the-muds trained to loosen up their television fare:

“Gee … if you can talk dirty on major television

 and the audience enjoys it,

why can’t we hear stuff like this more often!”

The performances of Maher and Lynch would hardly “cop a gold” at the Academy Awards.  They read the pornographic copy like two anchors on a small town News Program reading the yearly plug for a Masonic Charity Ball.

Of course, that was the comic “hook” and, for the most part, it worked.

“How ya gonna keep ‘em down on the farm,

 after they’ve seen Bill Maher?!”

That is only part of the comedian’s seemingly Libertarian appeal: no one refuses to take “no” for an answer with more steam-rolling charm than Bill Maher.

All mounted upon Bill Maher’s commitment to addict America to atheism, The Maher Transmissions know the cajones it will take to tear away what Maher hates most: God and the very idea of an Almighty.

With Bill Maher we’re dealing with a fiercely fit and funny Lenny Bruce not on drugs. Not to mention an audience that has been trained for many months to sit up and love absolutely everything Bill Maher has to sell:

“People are stupid …”

There are obviously some Maher lines that not even Bill Maher likes … but the audience laughs anyway.

Why?

“Even Bill Maher’s fans are stupid …  SOMETIMES!”

Why?

Until Americans surrender to Marx and his atheism, they’re stupid.

…  and I’m not afraid to say that European socialism works!”

That confession was inspired by the equally tenacious Andrew Breitbart.

Not to mention an “assist” for Andrew from the irresistibly bright and beautiful Amy Holmes.

Does Maher, indeed, have a hidden agenda behind all that Free-Thinking Atheism?

Yes.

He’s now an admitted Socialist.

Is he, in fact, a Communist “sleeper”?

Is he the Bill Clinton of American comedy?

No.

Bill Maher is an atheist first and a Socialist insult comedian second.

That is his religion.

Atheism.

That makes him a sitting duck for the now Marxist hegemony that owns both the White House and the entire Democratic Party.

When I first met Bill Maher in 1994 he was writing open confessions in what I think was Playboy magazine … or Hustler … about being unsure of his political positions.

At that time he was not a raving atheist … or he simply wasn’t raving.

He was a quick-witted comedian who I subsequently learned, during a night out on the town with he and Arianna Huffington in New Orleans, was born with the feet of Gene Kelly and Fred Astaire. One helluva dancer, which might explain his impeccable comic timing.

At any rate, I’ve been trying to figure this all out about Bill Maher, this rabid commitment to overturning roughly five thousand years of Judeo-Christianity.

He likes a big challenge!

That’s about all I can accept.

He is Mission Impossible!!

Why then is Andrew Breitbart, a conservative, also an atheist?

Their shared disbelief in God is perhaps why Andrew was invited on, despite all the indignation from some of Maher’s fans.

Bill and Andrew admire each other’s courage.

It takes mega-cajones to not only stand alone but to do it in a major public arena.

I had my ten minutes of courage with the Clinton administration, lost completely and became an editorialist as a result, still fighting the good fight but not on the television stages of the world.

I can honestly say that both Andrew Breitbart and Bill Maher make me very proud of American individual freedom.

As for their separate Missions Impossible: Bill Maher’s to make America atheist and Andrew’s to turn Hollywood to the Right?

My money’s on Andrew.

It’s no secret that television commercials, sitcoms, children’s shows and mainstream news are all renowned for promoting left-leaning bias. Woven into the tapestry of primetime Hollywood offerings are messages insinuating that the liberal choice is always the better, more intelligent option.  

Television is saturated with liberals who attempt to influence public opinion with subliminal methods as subtle as smiling approvingly when interviewing a liberal and scowling when discussing a conservative. 

The hit show Glee presents homosexuality as a viable option for confused prom “queens” vying for the dual prize of acceptance and a rhinestone crown. Private Practice’s Dr. Addison Montgomery heroically performed a partial-birth abortion and even Doctor House’s main squeeze Lisa Edelstein, complete with a hanger for a prop, promoted legalized abortion in a “We Won’t Go Back” ad.  

While most liberal bias is blatant, some can be more insidious, because inherent to all liberalism, regardless of genre or venue, is an unrelenting crusade to portray conservatives as idiotic dolts. 

Arrogant, self-impressed celebrities like the vulgar Bill Maher, who fancies himself the smartest person in the world, and horn-rimmed actress/comedian Janeane Garofalo, who also sees herself as an intellectual giant, are so convinced of their own brain power that both have forged full-fledged television careers disrespecting the intelligence and religious persuasion of political adversaries. 

Ask a politically uninformed person on the street if Sarah Palin is smart, and thanks to 30 Rock star/ comedian Tina Fey’s career-boosting misrepresentation of Sarah’s “I can see Russia” comment, a resounding “No!” is usually accompanied by a sarcastic giggle. 

In fact, Tina Fey single-handedly enhanced Saturday Night Live’s ratings by mockingly imitating Sarah Palin’s folksy style and portraying her as an intellectually challenged bubble brain.  Fey prides herself on depicting Sarah as a dim-witted fool.  Tina’s efforts proved so successful that while many people recognize that Palin’s warmth and genuine nature is not a reflection of her intellect, Tina’s merciless efforts convinced far too many people to associate the name ‘Palin’ with idiocy. 

Thanks to Hollywood, in the mind of the public, former president George W. Bush has also been reduced to a bumbling ignoramus. Rush Limbaugh, regardless of weight loss and rehab, continues to be depicted as a fat drug addict. The liberal media is even attempting to portray accomplished Minnesota Congresswoman Michelle Bachmann as a confused, wild-eyed ditz.  

On the other hand, when either Bill or Hillary Clinton is mentioned, the overriding liberal media consensus tends to imply: Both are brilliant. As for Michelle Obama, she is not only smart and savvy, she’s a lithe fashion icon with great biceps, while Barack is an outstanding orator with superior intellect who, despite submitting minimal written proof, is perceived by most as a genius – all thanks to the liberal media’s incessant cheerleading. 

In the Broadway play “You’re Welcome America,” left coast native and former Saturday Night Live star Will Ferrell got big laughs at the expense of George W. Bush. Yet Brilliant One Barack in the year 2011 dated his signature in the guest book in Westminster Abbey “2008” a slip-up that went unnoticed on the Hollywood Mock-o-Meter. 

Does anyone remember Dan Quayle misspelling potato as “potatoe?” If it had been a prominent conservative that had confused the date, the error would have inspired the dum-dum drumbeat to pound away in primetime for months.  

The truth is, Hollywood or otherwise, liberals everywhere perceive themselves as intellectually superior beings.  Those who align with the left do so because in their haughty, deluded minds, liberalism is defined as a cerebral ascent they believe conservatives are incapable of making.  Couple that sentiment with Hollywood’s narcissistic arrogance and the combo makes for television whose goal is to find every opportunity to “enlighten” the uninformed masses by depicting conservatives as liberals perceive them to be – dolts worthy of being laughed at and dismissed.