Goodwill toward men

In a comment on his post, Wretchard writes:

Feldman argues that Islamic values are not irrelevant to whether or not nuclear weapons may possibly be used. Neither should the values of the West, which after all has them in the thousands. Ever since Oppenheimer observed at the Trinity Test that technology finally gave man the means to annihilate himself, survival has been a case of the sufficiency of goodwill not the insufficiency of means.

As I wrote only yesterday, "the state of our soul matters". The moral laws that guide people matter. The West is going down the wrong road, increasing its ability to destroy its enemies, itself, and even its world, while deliberately driving religion and traditional moral teachings out of the public square.

The more powerful a country gets, the more moral and restrained it must be, or it will inevitably become a tyrant to the world.

Is America a tyrant? No. But those other nations that call America a tyrant would teach the world a lesson in tyranny that would not be soon forgot if they could carry America's sword and bind on her shield and steel greaves. It will take more men with the qualities of a George Washington, unwilling to accept the crown of the emperor or to become dictators over Americans, to ensure that America stays free, a beacon of liberty and a force for justice.

Let us pray that America remains a source of that goodwill, and that our leaders are likewise inspired by it.

God, Logos, the Word

This is a revised version of a comment of mine at The Belmont Club.

1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. 2 The same was in the beginning with God. 3 All things were made by him; and without him was not any thing made that was made. 4 In him was life; and the life was the light of men. 5 And the light shineth in darkness; and the darkness comprehended it not.
John 1:1-5

Following John, let us posit a scientist's God, the Logos, the Word, God Who created the Universe and the laws that govern it. The Universe consists of physical matter and physical laws, and also of life and the laws of life.

Now it is no great leap to add that He created the stuff that sets man apart from animal, the life-stuff that becomes souls and the laws that govern souls. Good, evil, free will, these are empirically discovered, universal soulful laws in the same way that gravity and the strong nuclear force are physical laws. The way we implement those universal soulful laws is soul engineering. Our understanding of those laws progresses following an empirical method. As we live, learn, and hopefully grow wiser, so we each conduct our own battery of experiments on the laws that govern the progress of the soul.

Given the Universe thus understood, we have a choice, whether to follow a tradition that has thought about the issues that affect souls for a long time, or to throw all such traditions away and wend our own way based solely on reason. But if we compare this path to the equivalent path in science, with a scientist throwing away everything going back to Pythagoras, then we realize how futile and ultimately stupid it is to throw away our traditional body of law that concerns the soul.

How then can we experimentally measure what is correct law and what is incorrect? By using reason, our own logos, to explore the results of actions and attitudes. God made us in his image, when he filled us with Logos. This God created the laws that govern these things. He did not create everything, anew at every instant, and override laws at every turn. To the contrary, He loves reason, as reason/Logos is the very image of God with which He created us.

This is what Benedict XVI was saying when he quoted the Byzantine Emperor Manuel II Paleologus in September 2006.

God is not pleased by blood - and not acting reasonably is contrary to God's nature. Faith is born of the soul, not the body. Whoever would lead someone to faith needs the ability to speak well and to reason properly, without violence and threats... To convince a reasonable soul, one does not need a strong arm, or weapons of any kind, or any other means of threatening a person with death.
Manuel II Paleologus

Most certainly we have to realize that the state of our soul matters. We must tend to it. We must encourage others to do good and not to do evil. And the definition of good is obvious to all who are reasonable. It starts with the golden rule, and continues from there. The ten commandments were an early approximation, as were the legal codes of Leviticus.

Evil is equally obvious. Just wake up, open your eyes, and the degrees of evil will be apparent. There is a passage in Matthew 7 that says it all.

Beware of false prophets, which come to you in sheep's clothing, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. Ye shall know them by their fruits. Matthew 7:15-16

One of the most interesting articles I recall from the initial time of the Pope Rage was Andrew Bostom's article in the American Thinker. Mr. Bostom pointed out that Manuel II Paleologus was so persuasive in his argument that the Moslem theologian with whom he was conversing underwent an inner conversion to Christianity!

At the end of the 26-round marathon dialogue of seven centuries ago alluded to by Pope Benedict, the Muslim “muderris” (theologian), overwhelmed by continuous glimpses of Christian truth, hovers at the threshold of abandoning Islam and embracing Christianity. The muderris openly marvels at the magnificence of Christ and the Christian teachings, while proclaiming his readiness to journey to Constantinople (the last significant stronghold of the once mighty Byzantine Christian empire), and study with the theologians there. The drama of the dialogue thus concludes with the muderris’ effective inner conversion to Christianity, and his promise to Manuel II to pursue this profound change of heart.

The Jihadists fear our Western religion of Christianity is too attractive to be resisted by Moslems. Let us put their beliefs to the test.

Update: As a commenter noted, Reason was not God's greatest gift to Man: that would be Jesus Christ. Reason, or Logos, was instead the very center of what it means to be Man, and it is the essence of what Man shares with God, it is the "image" that Man shares with God.

Islamophobia: The Bumper Sticker

UPDATE: A variation

Troubling Survey of Moslems in America

This survey was filled out by Moslems at the Islamic Society of North America convention. This convention draws about 30,000 attendees yearly. Its members overwhelmingly belong to Saudi-funded, Wahabbi influenced mosques. 307 responded to the survey. This is approximately 1% of attendees at the convention. All the respondents were U.S. citizens. We don't know how many women answered as compared to men.

Though the U.S. has not suffered any major terror attacks inside the U.S. since 9/11, this survey shows that fortunate circumstance does not result from any immunity of U.S. Moslems to jihadist tendencies or sympathies.

1. Are you a U.S. Citizen? (If no, then don’t fill out survey.)
YES 307
NO 0

No fresh immigrants here. Nobody here who plans to leave soon. All these responses come from people who want to live the rest of their lives in the USA, and who want their children and their children's children to live in the USA too. Bear that in mind as you read on.

2. Do you consider yourself to be a Muslim first, an American first, or both equally?
MUSLIM FIRST 214
AMERICAN FIRST 4
BOTH EQUALLY 86
UNDECIDED 3

Over 2/3 are Moslem first, 1/3 are both equally, and essentially none of them are American first. This does not indicate they will be good citizens. They will vote for what is good for them before they vote for what is good for the country. They will certainly not be good representatives. This is something that voters must remember when Moslems run for political office.

3. Is the American government at war with the religion of Islam?
YES 208
NO 79
UNDECIDED 20

Over 2/3 believe the US is at war with the whole religion of Islam. Apparently W's constant refrains of "religion of peace," "religion of peace" aren't being heard in ISNA homes.

I guess that Moslems know that Islam is not a religion of peace, and everybody else has either come to that conclusion or is edging that way. So no matter how many times it is repeated, it is understood to be nonsense and thus ignored.

So if Moslems already believe that the US is at war with Islam, what is the purpose of limiting the war so tightly? If the US is already at war with the whole freaking religion, why not start fighting to win?

4. Can a good Muslim be a good American?
YES 292
NO 11
UNDECIDED 4

What does a "good" Moslem mean by a "good" American, anyway? Given the rest of the answers, I wonder.

5. Did Muslims hijack planes and fly them into buildings on 9/11?
YES 117
NO 139
UNDECIDED 51

Huh?

Either they are stupid, or inveterate conspiracy mongers, or they are takfiris who have expelled, in their own minds, the 19 hijackers of 9/11/2001 from their religion.

It's convenient that all these ex-Moslems were dead before anybody excommunicated them. Why don't they do that to some of the living jihadists in their religion?

6. Did the U.S. government have advance knowledge of the 9/11 attacks, and allow the attacks to occur?
YES 200
NO 70
UNDECIDED 37

Ridiculous.

7. Did the U.S. government organize the 9/11 attacks?
YES 106
NO 151
UNDECIDED 50

I sense confusion in the answers. The answers are not saying what they seem to say. They are based on wishful thinking, not fact.

8. Are the tapes of Osama Bin Laden, claiming responsibility for the 9/11 attacks and threatening future attacks, real or fake?
REAL 126
FAKE 129
UNDECIDED 52

Wishful thinking. "It's too awful to think about. I reject it! Mossad! Jews. Jews. JOOOOOS!"

9. Did Muslims commit the July 2005 train and bus bombings in London?
YES 140
NO 104
UNDECIDED 63

Half think that the 7/7 bombings in Londonistan were committed by Moslems, half don't or don't know. More wishful thinking.

10. The Canadian government says it stopped a plot by Canadian Muslims in June 2006 to attack targets in Canada. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 61
NO 202
UNDECIDED 44

2/3 say the plot was a frame-up. So now, even Canada, land that is so lily livered it can't even stick with the language of the Queen who is on its currency, is part of the conspiracy against Moslems?

11. The British government says it stopped a plot by British Muslims in August 2006 to bomb planes flying to America. Do you believe there was a real plot by Muslims?
YES 66
NO 191
UNDECIDED 50

So Britain is in on the secret plot too! Wishful thinking.

12. Is Al Qaeda a real organization, operated by Muslims who are trying to attack America?
YES 149
NO 109
UNDECIDED 49

Half say yes, half say no or don't know.

Wishful thinking.

13. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American freedoms?
YES 17
NO 269
UNDECIDED 21

That's interesting, in the sense of the Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times." I'd far rather live in boring times, but I don't. I wonder if anybody actually did, ever!

Read the answer to 14, and then look at this again.

14. Is Al Qaeda attacking America because Al Qaeda hates American involvement in the Muslim world?
YES 228
NO 54
UNDECIDED 25

Isn't there something else? Don't they hate baseball and Britney Spears and everything we put on television and in the movie theaters? Is this American involvement in the Moslem world, or just selling stuff that Moslems like?

More wishful thinking.

15. Is it justifiable for the U.S. government to do any of the following in an attempt to prevent terrorist attacks in America:

a. taking religion and ethnicity into account as one factor when deciding whom to interview and search at airports?
YES 37
NO 258
UNDECIDED 12

Wishful thinking. This is almost as unpopular in the survey as entrapping Moslems into committing terrorist acts. It seems that some priorities are messed up.

b. monitoring activities at American mosques?
YES 43
NO 255
UNDECIDED 9

Wishful thinking.

c. listening to phone calls of people in America whom the government claims are connected in some way with Al Qaeda?
YES 64
NO 232
UNDECIDED 11

Wishful thinking.

d. having an informer pretend to support or encourage violence against America, to see if the targeted Muslims will decide to attack American targets?
YES 35
NO 258
UNDECIDED 14

In other words, "are you against entrapment by law enforcement?" Where did this leading question come from?

e. monitoring Muslim charities in America, in the hopes of preventing funding for possible terrorist attacks?
YES 52
NO 242
UNDECIDED 13

They don't see that this could protect their charities from being perverted and ruined by terrorists or other traitors and criminals.

f. focusing Immigration & Customs Enforcement resources on deporting Muslim illegal aliens, who have not been convicted of terrorism, in the hopes of disrupting possible Al Qaeda attacks?
YES 29
NO 263
UNDECIDED 15

What about other illegal aliens? Ship them all out.

g. allowing Muslim illegal aliens to stay in America if they agree to work as informants, monitoring the Muslim community for the government?
YES 21
NO 277
UNDECIDED 9

Bizarre question.

h. torturing suspected Al Qaeda members to get information about possible planned attacks?
YES 14
NO 278
UNDECIDED 15

This is the most unpopular of all. Tell it to Margaret Hassan. And what about known Al Qaeda members, like Adam Gadahn or Osama bin Laden?

16. Do you believe that your local mosque is being monitored by wiretaps, government agents, or informants?
YES 227
NO 59
UNDECIDED 21

Wow! Actual good news in this survey. If they believe it, maybe it will keep them from acting on all the anti-American urges revealed in answers 26 to 30.

17. Do you believe that your personal phone calls are being listened to, or that your personal mail or email is being read, by the U.S. government?
YES 205
NO 78
UNDECIDED 24

Got anything to hide?

18. Do you believe that your home is bugged by the U.S. government?
YES 97
NO 189
UNDECIDED 21

Good grief.

19. Do you believe that the U.S. government has secretly searched your home?
YES 43
NO 245
UNDECIDED 19

Hay caramba!

20. If you, or a member of your family, have been questioned by the federal government at any time after 9/11, how were you treated during the interview?
TREATED WELL 65
TREATED BADLY 25
NOT APPLICABLE 217

So 1 in 3 were investigated and 2/3 of those were treated well. They got off scott free. What's the problem?

21. Should Iran develop nuclear weapons?
YES 161
NO 123
UNDECIDED 23

But of course. How would they pursue their goal of a World Without Zionism and a World Without America if they had no WMDs?

/sarcasm

22. Should America attack Iran to stop Iran from developing nuclear weapons?
YES 10
NO 292
UNDECIDED 5

Wrong. America is going to have to fight Iran either way. Why wait until after they have the bomb? Who says that Iran is entitled to an even fight? Besides, no fight against America will ever be fair. American soldiers are far better fighters than anyone else in the world. There is no comparison.

23. Was America justified in invading Iraq in 2003?
YES 8
NO 294
UNDECIDED 5

According to the best information available at the time, the correct answer is "Yes." Oh well, the Coalition didn't find all the expected WMDs, so I suppose we overthrew that murderous dictator and his blood-soaked family for nothing except some thanks from the Kurds. And now we're going to have to whack Moqtada too. At least that'll make the ISNA Wahabbists happy!

24. Should American troops leave Iraq immediately, or stay there until the Iraqi government and Iraqi military are stronger?
LEAVE NOW 199
LEAVE LATER 86
UNDECIDED 22

But of course. 2/3 would have the US cut and run to make room for Al Qaeda, which doesn't exist, to create an Emirate in Anbar. Wahabbists like that idea.

25. Was America justified in invading Afghanistan after 9/11?
YES 51
NO 248
UNDECIDED 8

Wrong answer.

26. Is violence by Muslims against American civilians acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 23
NO 274
UNDECIDED 10

Even 7% is too many. That means 7% of ISNA attendees who answered the survey are willing to murder Americans for no other reason than they are Americans.

27. Is violence by Muslims against the American military overseas acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 134
NO 154
UNDECIDED 19

Classic defensive jihad theory. About 40% support the Jihad overseas against America. That means that America had damn well better monitor hawala and other money transfers, and all Moslem charities. Funding and other support for Jihad must be strangled.

28. Is violence by Muslims against the American military in the U.S. acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 73
NO 211
UNDECIDED 23

About 25% would be in favor of murdering American soldiers at home. They would support it, or volunteer to do it, or cover it up.

29. Is violence by Muslims against American government officials acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 51
NO 231
UNDECIDED 25

20% of those who had an opinion would favor murdering American politicians and government employees, such as policemen and firemen, for the Jihad. Not good. Very bad. Dearborn could burn just like Paris.

30. If you learned about a plot by Muslims to attack targets inside America, would you tell law enforcement authorities?
YES 234
NO 39
UNDECIDED 34

80% to 90% would tell. That's good.

Summing up
Two answers with good news in them. The rest is bad news. Expected. But bad.

Updated:
Also on the story, Eye on the World, Freedom's Zone, LGF

NATO's Enemy the BBC

The BBC in their own words:

Nato's enemy
The BBC's David Loyn travels with Taleban forces in the south.

David Loyn, what a guy. Either he is NATO's enemy, or he is really a very foolish little boy who wants to be a terrorist one day when he grows up and doesn't have to wear short pants anymore. Or he has a man-crush on one of the shaggy bearded ruffians with a smell of cordite, a disarming way of grinning at a fellow, and a twinkle in his one, good eye.

Behind him, in the shadows, the BBC lurks and pimps for the Taliban.

H/T Michelle Malkin, who is not surprised. Why? Because the BBC already admitted they hate America and England and promote Islam at every chance!

As she wrote yesterday:

The donkey party is led by thumb-sucking demagogues in prominent positions who equate Bush with Hitler and Jim Crow, call him a liar in front of high school students and the world, fantasize about impeachment and fetishize the human rights of terrorists who want to kill me.

Put simply: There are no grown-ups in the Democrat Party.

We will have to put the BBC into childcare too. Michelle and the other security Moms are the ones to do it.

Hospitality

This posting got lost a few months back, on July 20 2006, in the middle of the Israeli counterstrike against Hizballah's territory in Lebanon. It is as true now as it ever was.

Imagine if you will that a friend of a friend comes to visit your country and your town, and because of your friendship you agree to let him stay at your house. Imagine that one day you come home to find that your visitor has gone to visit the neighbor's house and killed someone there. It turns out that your visitor is a murderous madman.

Are you responsible for what your visitor has done? What do you do? If the visitor is too scary for you to kill or capture yourself, then what do you do? What are the limits of hospitality? And which is more important, GOOD or FRIENDSHIP, however distant?

That is the situation that Lebanon is in. She has a visitor from Iran named Hizballah who has been murdering the neighbors. Now the neighbors are going through Lebanon's house to look for the murderer, who is hidden somewhere in the house and has hidden weapons under the baby's crib, behind the toilet, and under every mattress. It's time for Lebanon to take responsibility for the actions of their guest and STOP HIZBALLAH BY ANY MEANS NECESSARY.

Needed, vigorous critique of Islam

From Ex-jihadist seeks Islam's Martin Luther - 10/22/06 - The Detroit News Online

Hamid believes a reformation will lead to the more enlightened practice of Islam, as it did with the Christian and Jewish reformations. The essential ingredients of reform, he says, are rejection of the principles that apostates must be killed; women can be subjugated and enslaved; Jews are subhuman, and Islam can be spread through violence.

The challenge, he says, is that no Islamic Martin Luther has emerged. 'Show me where Muslims are speaking out against these beliefs,' he says.

'Only a small number of Muslims are jihadists, but many, many more sympathize with their goals. They are passive terrorists.'

Hamid's book is 'The Roots of Jihad.' He remains a practicing Muslim, but wants his religion to become more free, more tolerant, more open to secular pleasures -- like baseball -- and more accepting of criticism.

The West, he says, could help with the latter.

'You are so willing to criticize your own religions,' he says. 'You must do the same for Islam.'

In other words, instead of walking on eggshells for fear of roiling the wasps' nest, both East and West would be better served by a vigorous critique of Islam.

When one is overly sensitive to something, with no biological reason such as sickness to explain it, then Systematic Desensitization or Graduated Exposure Therapy is called for. They know they want a vigorous critique. We know it. They are crying out for it by their actions. After all, if Moslem imams can blame women for being raped, then anyone can blame Moslems for exposing Islam to criticism by their actions. Right? Doesn't the law of symmetry apply?

Moloch

Addenbrooke's Hospital, in Cambridge, said it was no longer able to afford the dignified disposal at a local crematorium of foetuses from unwanted pregnancies.

Instead, they are being burnt in the hospital's main incinerator - which is normally used for rubbish and clinical waste

And so the revival of the sacrificial cult of Moloch continues according to plan.

Ted Turner must have finally made up his mind

Remember back when Ted Turner was still making up his mind about whose side he should be on in the War on Terror?

Riehl World View asks the question:

Knowing full well that certain video footage was made for the expressed purpose of terrorist propaganda, what is it CNN decides to do with footage of American troops being shot by terrorist snipers in Iraq?

Anderson Cooper first describes what happened, then misses the point

Last night, we ran a controversial piece produced by our Baghdad correspondent Michael Ware. The backstory is that through intermediaries Michael had been communicating with Ibrahim Al-Shimary, a shadowy leader and spokesman for the Islamic Army. Michael had sent him a series of questions concerning the insurgency in Iraq and its motives. He was surprised when he received two videotapes in response. We aired portions of both last night. [...]

Whether or not you agree with us in this case, our goal, as always, is to present the unvarnished truth as best we can.

Confederate Yankee gives some valuable background to explain why this propaganda is so valuable to the terrorists.

In any event, the article and video provided by CNN—brace yourselves—doesn't provide anything approaching a honest telling of why insurgent snipers are a "newsworthy" item.

[... much of value omitted, read it all!]

This leaves the filming of sniper attacks as the only real viable option for insurgents wishing to film an attack that won't also inflame the Iraqi population against them.

Blackfive protests:

I sent an email to CNN asking how the decision to show the video was made and whether or not they considered the war effort, the feelings of the families back home and the troops fighting this war.

Uncle Jimbo cusses a blue streak and concludes

CNN has made a conscious choice and they chose the wrong side. By promoting these evil killers, by giving them credibility, by treating them as simply our opposites, they have decided that the terrorists are our equivalent.

So now, Ted Turner's CNN is serving as a propaganda arm of the terrorists.

Is this news or propaganda?
Why did the terrorists film that video? Why did they put it out on the internet, if not to be seen, if not to propagandize, if not to show how effective they are at murdering coalition soldiers in cold blood? It's propaganda. CNN has aired enemy propaganda as if it were the objective truth. But it isn't. It's ene-effing-my propa-effing-ganda!

The Script
The mujahedin's script of conquest goes like this. First, they frighten us, fill us with doubt. Propaganda. Attacks. Explosions. Terror. Uncontrolled terror fills the state. Nobody seems to know where it comes from or who is doing it. The state government doesn't want to repress its own people, doesn't want to turn to the darkside, and so becomes increasingly ineffective. We the people fear, plead, finally despair. Then in the midst of our universal despair, the pleasant ones, the well dressed, manicured, perfumed, educated ones come in and offer to save us from the real bad guys, the ones they can't control (stifling a giggle behind their hand), and we agree to let them protect us. So they take over and we agree to live under their laws to restore some semblance of order. See Afghanistan from twenty to ten years ago, and Somalia for the last ten years culminating this year to see how the script has played out before. That's when they have us and can kill and rape and steal at will. At least, that's the way they want it to happen. That's the way they have done it before, starting 1400 years ago in the eternal jihad.

Do we follow the script, or break it?
That's what they want. But we have a choice in it too.

The right choice is to say "NO" to the mujahedin, to do the opposite of whatever they want, to insult and belittle and ridicule and mock them and everything they hold dear. The mujahedin, jihad enablers and fellow travelers must all be killed or humiliated and their faith destroyed, and must come to learn through bitter experience that they have been led down the wide, easy road of sin by generations of imams and ayatollahs and that when the final judgement day comes jihad only leads to utter defeat, death, and total humiliation.

What can we do to oppose them?
We must oppose jihad at every turn. We must pass laws that declare jihad to be wicked, evil, a barbarous survival of the bad old days. Specifically it is the exact equivalent of Espionage and Treason. When they attack us, we retaliate and kill them. When they infiltrate our lands, we expose and expel them. When they turn buildings of worship into arms depots and military training facilities we condemn and knock down the buildings and arrest the mujahedin and their accomplices. When they try to terrify us with their propaganda we ridicule it, we turn it back on them, but we never, never, ever play it straight. When they threaten their co-religionists who drop the dime on them, we protect the righteous ones who have upheld the good and defied evil. If they attempt to convert ours to their jihad cult, we do not allow it. On the other hand, we encourage everyone to convert the jihad fellow travelers away from the death cult, and if their hands are not bloody then we embrace them within Christianity, or Wicca, or Confucianism, or Hinduism, or Buddhism, or any way that doesn't base its iconoclastic cult on idolizing a book and reviving a barbarous lifestyle from the 7th century after Christ.

It starts with a "T"
On the other hand, what has CNN done? They have volunteered to be tools of the jihad against us. They have volunteered to give comfort to, to aid and abet the actions of, those who are at war with our country.

What is that archaic legal term again?

Madeleine Albright: SuperStar!

Pajamas Media: Best Campaign Ad.....

Look out Molly Shannon, Madeleine Albright is the new "SuperStar"!

The Party of Virtue and the Party of Vice

In an interview with the the sheep in wolf's clothing, Wolf Blitzer, Bill Maher said that Republicans are the party of virtue, so when one of theirs turns into a creep then it's a big deal, but when Democrats are exposed as creeps, it's not a big deal. Why? Because "Democrats are not the virtue people. They are not the people who want to legislate morality. The Republicans are."

This is simply false. What is the attempt to keep all abortions legal, everywhere in the US, all the time, for all women and girls, but a particular view of morality? Or the anti-smoking movement, the McGovernist anti-war movement, gay marriage, open borders, the Americans with Disabilities Act, the Sarbanes-Oxley law designed to half the profits of public companies in the USA, the suppression of Christ in the Christmas season, the McCain-Feingold attempt to repeal Freedom of Speech, or PETA's polymorphous perversities of animal idolatry? They are all attempts to favor one kind of morality above others. And none of them are mainstream Republican ideas.

But more important than the intrinsic falsehood of his claim is his statement that Republicans are in favor of virtue and Democrats are not. Given that he spends half of the interview jawing about how Republicans are too sexually repressed and ought to loosen up and do something naughty, we can only guess that he thinks the Democrats are in favor of lots of sex. Given Maher's stripper-chasing ways, it's got to be meaningless sex.

As Maher is deriding the Republicans as the Party of Virtue, then he must also be happily annointing the Democrats as the Party of Vice.

Maybe the Democratic leadership should run that thought past a focus group?