The Undoing of America -- by Dennis Prager.

By Dennis Prager

 http://frontpagemag.com/2009/12/23/the-undoing-of-america-by-dennis-prager/#bio

Verne Strickland Blogmaster: My patriotic friend Jude Eden sent a video about Dennis Prager's refreshing stance on American exceptionalism. This led me to track down this stirring article, which I offer here. Intended for every proud American.  June 15, 2012

As the passage of the bill that will start the process of nationalizing health care in America becomes almost inevitable, so, too, the process of undoing America’s standing as The Last Best Hope of Earth will have begun.
That description of America was not, as more than a few Americans on the left believe, made by some right-wing chauvinist. It was made by President Abraham Lincoln in an address to Congress on Dec. 1, 1862.
The bigger the American government becomes, the more like other countries America becomes. Even a Democrat has to acknowledge the simple logic: America cannot at the same time be the last best hope of earth and increasingly similar to more and more countries.
Either America is unique, in which case it at least has the possibility of uniquely embodying hopes for mankind — or it is not unique, in which case it is by definition not capable of being the last best hope for humanity — certainly no more so than, let us say, Sweden or the Netherlands.
Indeed, President Obama acknowledged this in April, when asked by a European reporter if he believes in American exceptionalism. The president’s response:

“I believe in American exceptionalism, just as I suspect that the Brits believe in British exceptionalism and the Greeks believe in Greek exceptionalism.”

The president was honest. In his view, as in the view of today’s Democratic party, America is special only in the same way we parents regard our children as “special.” We all say it and we all believe it, but we know that it is meaningless except as an emotional expression of our love for our children. If every is child is equally special, none can be special, in fact. If every country is exceptional, then no country is exceptional, or at least no more so than any other.
With the largest expansion of the American government and state since the New Deal, the Democratic party — alone — is ending a key factor in America’s uniqueness and greatness: individualism, which is made possible only when there is limited government.
The formula here is not rocket science: The more the government/state does, the less the individual does.
America’s uniqueness and greatness has come from a number of sources, two of which are its moral and social value system, which is a unique combination of Enlightenment and Judeo-Christian values, and its emphasis on individual liberty and responsibility.
Just as the left has waged war on America’s Judeo-Christian roots, it has waged war on individual liberty and responsibility.
Hillel, the most important rabbi of the Talmud (which, alongside the Hebrew Bible, is Judaism’s most important book), summarized the human being’s obligations in these famous words: “If I am not for myself, who will be for me? But if I am only for myself, what am I? And if not now, when?”
What does this mean in the present context? It means that before anything else, the human being must first take care of himself.
When people who are capable of taking care of themselves start relying on the state to do so, they can easily become morally inferior beings. When people who could take care of their family start relying on the state to do so, they can easily become morally inferior. And when people who could help take care of fellow citizens start relying on the state to do so, the morally coarsening process continues.
There has always been something profoundly ennobling about American individualism and self-reliance. Nothing in life is as rewarding as leading a responsible life in which one has not to depend on others for sustenance. Little, if anything, in life is as rewarding as successfully taking care of oneself, one’s family and one’s community. That is why America has always had more voluntary associations than any other country.
But as the state and government have gotten bigger, voluntary associations have been dying. Why help others if the state will do it? Indeed, as in Scandinavia, the attitude gradually becomes: why even help myself when the state will do it?
Barack Obama, Harry Reid and Nancy Pelosi are right about one thing — they are indeed making history. But their legacy will not be what they think. They will be known as the people who led to the end of America as the last best hope of earth.
Lincoln weeps.

Jude Eden: What I Learned From the 2012 NC7 Election

New post on It's Political

What I Learned From the 2012 NC7 Election by Jude Eden, Jane of Trades

The NC7 election was very instructive because it illuminated and reaffirmed many things we need to know about the Republican party and how they operate.

In the spring of 2011, the races hadn’t even begun for the general public, but the back-room deals had already begun and deeds set in motion to cripple Conservative Ilario Pantano and to favor David Rouzer to win.

First, RINO Senator Bob Rucho hired a Democrat precinct chair and member of the amnesty-for-illegals-supporting – not to mention racist-extremist-groups La Raza and El Pueblo to re-draw the NC7 district lines in favor of David Rouzer, who announced he was running hours after the lines were redrawn.[1]  The new district lines now suddenly excluded Pantano-friendly military base communities like Onslow County and the Fort Bragg area, and now included Rouzer’s Johnston county with its favoritism to Big Agriculture and Big Tobacco who benefit heavily from illegal labor.  Members of the NHCGOP and others from the coastal part of the district went to Raleigh to voice their objections to no avail.

Next, the Johnston County GOP headquarters only carried information about Rouzer, and when locals seeking information on Pantano asked where they could find it, they were given fake information and sent on wild goose chases.  Pantano himself as well as supporters were kicked off JCGOP social media sites so as not to allow any alternative information or any disputation of Rouzer propaganda.

When it came to the debate held in Johnston County, they changed the time of the debate several times and didn’t publicize it.  Only about 25 Rouzer supporters showed up to the JC debate.  The organizers of that debate didn’t want his supporters to see what a sorry debater he was when compared to Ilario Pantano.  3 of the 4 debates were recorded, and all show that Pantano was far and away superior to his opponents.   Pantano was also prevented from attending and speaking to the JC convention, while Rouzer was made the keynote speaker.  They did everything they could to prevent the people of Johnston County from making an informed decision on their candidate.

Rouzer did everything he could to avoid being at events where Ilario would be for this same reason.  As a speaker, Rouzer is a total flop.  He inspires nothing but flowers to wilt, his audience to fall asleep as he fumbles through barely-memorized speeches and pithy sayings.  He did not run on his record because he didn’t have a great record on which to run.  As much as possible he had others speak for him instead of standing on his own.

Our economy is in the tank, people are desperate for jobs while millions of illegals are being employed.  Even veterans returning from war are struggling to find work.  Rouzer himself worked on a farm to pay for college, yet campaigned that working on farms and in construction was work “Americans, frankly, aren’t willing to do.”  Another part of his campaign was that Ilario Pantano, being from New York, wasn’t “one of us” in NC.  Yet illegal immigrants are?

Rouzer did not win because he was the better, more Conservative candidate, the stronger opponent to the Democrats and Obama.  He won because, despite his deep flaws, sagging performance, he had the big Republican machine behind him.  Even with redistricting and the Republican party machine doing everything they could to favor him, Rouzer still only managed to win by 3000 votes, and that largely in his own county far from the coast.  That’s what a pathetic candidate he is.

Let us turn to RINO Rouzer supporters.  In 2010 Senator Thom Goolsby ran as a Tea Party Conservative, endorsed Pantano in 2010 and used Pantano’s volunteers and phone center to get himself elected.  Within 5 months of getting elected, he turned tail to endorse the Rouzer for the 2012 election.  On the radio Friday after the primary[2] he said that all the Republican freshmen backed Rouzer.  Thanks to him for giving us important information.  Now we know what spineless RINO’s the freshmen are, that they too support amnesty for illegals and will do everything they can to quell and nullify the Conservative voices in Southeastern NC.

Goolsby also said on that show that he supported Rouzer so that we would have the best chance of beating Obama in November.  How utterly laughable!  Pantano is so obviously the strongest asset for a team against the Obama machine.  Goolsby, the freshmen and all the others who supported Rouzer have now in fact crippled us in fighting the Obama machine by choosing the man who doesn’t stand on principle, but rather goes with whomever’s paying.  In the New Hanover County debate he actually said that he lobbied for Amnesty for illegals because that’s what he was told to do.[3]

Rouzer could not win one debate, could not inspire half the enthusiasm that Pantano did, and to say the least wasn’t nearly the most Conservative or able candidate.  All he had going for him was other people propping him up.  How can a puppet do political battle with the Democrat machine?

We have seen what the parties do to truly Conservative candidates.  Pantano is not the only one who had the district redrawn from under him.  It’s being done to Allen West in Florida,[4] and many other strong Conservatives across the country.  It goes without saying that the Leftists want to destroy them, but so does the Right.  They do not want to lose their  power and pensions any more than the Democrats.  They do not want to lose control of the country’s purse strings.  They do not care about fighting corruption in Washington, reducing the debt that is crushing us, or bringing the economy back from the pit.  They do not care about protecting citizens and our liberty.  They care about getting elected.  Just like the Democrats, it is the mission of the Republican party - not to promote the values of the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, but “to help elect Republican candidates.”

If it wasn’t abundantly clear before, it is now: We are not just fighting the Democrats for the soul of our country.  We are fighting the Republicans as well.  The Republicans are in bed with Big Business that benefits from cheap labor.  They are working with groups like La Raza that don’t want Hispanics to assimilate as American citizens, they want to eliminate our borders and claim American states as theirs.   They are recruiting for “diversity” rather than standing on Conservative principle as they’ve recruited Neri Martinez, who is from Florida, to be North Carolina’s Hispanic Coordinator for the Republican party.

Importantly to the November elections, from the top down nationally Republican candidates are being told not to talk about illegal immigration and the destruction it is reaping on our country.  They are supporting amnesty for illegals and pressuring their candidates to follow along.  They worked very hard using every underhanded method they could in this election to make sure the Conservative who had the peoples’ confidence and a strong stance against illegal immigration would be defeated.

Is this the Republican party we’re supposed to support?  The party that’s supposed to be for Conservative values but is just the same as the Democrat party?  We are where we are today not just because of destructive Leftist policies, but because of those who have done nothing to thwart them.  Compromise they say.  We know what that means: Lose and hope to be liked.  It never works, and it’s the citizens who suffer.  We’re losing our freedoms, we’re losing our homes, we’re losing the moral foundations that make our society strong and free.  It’s clear the Republican party - with their milquetoast candidates and their efforts to derail true Conservatives – are not winning any battles for us.

So it’s up to us – to vote our principles, not just the candidate with the letter behind their name that we like.  Busy  as we are being the bread-winner, taking care of home and family and all the other to-do’s – we must educate ourselves about our local politics and elected officials.  Send your money to your candidate, not the party.  Educate yourself and vote your principles.  And shine the light on the party corruption wherever you see it!

---

[1] http://www.sodahead.com/united-states/another-rino-strikes-again-senate-leadership-hires-la-raza-supporter-to-redistrict-for-national/question-1680987/

[2] Tyler Cralle show, 980 WAAV, May 11, 2012

[3] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ddrH3OP9jho&feature=plcp

[4] http://shark-tank.net/2012/01/27/24717/

Jude Eden, Jane of Trades | June 14, 2012 at 3:26 pm | Categories: Uncategorized | URL: http://wp.me/p2b545-5e

CANCER WALK -- We are cancer patients -- victims, if you will. We gather in the chemo room to grapple with a killer disease.

CANCER WALk . . .

I belong 

By Verne Strickland  06/17/12

I belong in this place. With these people. 

There are not many times in our lives when any of us can say this with assurance.

 

Here I belong.

My fellow travelers are bound together by one common thread that brought us together – cancer.

Our gathering place is the chemo suite at the Hanover Hematology/Oncology facility in Wilmington.

This is not designed as a social center. Its purpose is to treat cancer victims with sophisticated, individually designed chemotherapy treatments administered intravenously. These high-tech drugs kill cancer. Boost survival rates. Offer more precious time to patients. 

There are usually twenty or more patients here at any one time. I am one of them. We sit in comfortable padded recliners, as registered nurses circulate about, hooking us up to IV units that drip measured amounts of cancer-fighting drugs into our bodies.

Some read, some sleep, others may chat quietly with those in neighboring chairs.

There is not a sense of urgency here. Or a sense doom or fear. We know why we are here. We know this is the serum of life that is poured drop by drop into our veins. And it is this that kindles the spirit of togetherness we seem to feel as a group. We are all on a mission of life or death. 

Patients with a wide array of cancers in various stages are in this room. I have a bone cancer – multiple myeloma – discovered by highly-respected oncologist, William McNulty. I have endured a lot of pain, and a lot of fatigue, weight loss, and other side effects from the treatments.

The cancer struck in my hips. In the early going I had great difficulty walking. But my treatment regimen has helped me make considerable progress.

I am one of the lucky ones.

I will spend about two hours per week in chemotherapy, and have regular consultations with Dr. McNulty. People with more serious illness may spend as much as eight hours in treatment. It’s a sacrifice they are willing to make for the benefits of the powerful medicines that kill cancer.

Today I strike up a conversation with a pleasant well-spoken cancer patient seated beside me. Bob is about sixty, a retired U.S. Naval officer. He has lung cancer. Compared to him I have a garden variety malignancy. 

There is no bitterness in this wonderful man. It cannot be said that he is resigned to his fate, because he fights with courage and tenacity. But he knows that, short of a miracle, he may prolong the fight, but is not likely to win it.

“Do you have a faith that is helping you through this?” I ask. He looks at me with a steady, alert gaze. “Of course. God watches over me.”

 

I discover references to the Almighty throughout this Wilmington cancer ward. Earlier, as I conversed with a sweet lady of about seventy, she confided that she had been miraculously healed of a cancerous growth. Now she is back with another threat – pancreatic cancer. I believe in miracles – I have had my own -- and told her I would pray fervently for her. She inspired me greatly. But this may be a tall order. Then I think of Lazarus. 

On a previous session in the chemotherapy suite, I met a seemingly robust gentleman with a jovial spirit. He looked tanned and fit. He lives here on the coast, retired from a successful career with his own chemical company. He likes boating, fishing, and enjoying his family. He has esophageal cancer, but evidences no outward concern or burden with his illness. It is like this at every turn with these people – a special breed in every way. 

But back to my Navy pal Bob. He was good company, and I think each of us bolstered the mood of the other as we got acquainted.

He said, “You know this is actually a special thing we share here. All of us are struggling with similar problems. It just helps to gather like this, knowing that the person next to us understands. I think we gather strength from this, even when we don’t talk. We’ve all been brought here. We all belong here. It’s a path we have to take.”

It was a profound statement. And I feel it too. In the midst of the sickness, the pain, the unknown destinies each of us face, there is a special camaraderie here that is palpable, even joyful.
 
And so the kind and gentle nurses move with efficiency and purpose throughout the room, checking each patient in turn. With their special training, using computers, they monitor the cancer-fighting fluids going into each individual. It is the stuff of life and survival they administer. A mistake could be catastrophic. 

They have our complete trust. We must give it. In exchange they offer dedication, professionalism, and heartfelt care. To us they are guardian angels.

Thank you, Lord. Praise your Name. For this place. For these caregivers. For those of us who wait and suffer and hope. Thy will be done.

Support the Boy Scouts of America and their ban on gays

Verne Strickland Blogmaster, June 14, 2012

The Boy Scouts of America is again under siege from homosexual rights activists who are demanding the organization amend its policies to include homosexual members and leaders.
For Grassfire old-timers, coming to the defense of the Boy Scouts was our very first issue way back in 2000. Back then, homosexual activists unleashed a blistering assault on the Scouts after the Supreme Court affirmed the BSA’s right to set their own leadership criteria.
In the decade since, the BSA has become a favorite whipping boy of homosexual activists who are unrelenting in their efforts to force the Scouts to allow gay members and gay leadership.
Up to this point, the Scouts have held firm …


However, when a 20 year-old eagle scout named Zach Wahl admonished BSA policies in his recently published book “My Two Moms: Lessons of Love, Strength, and What Makes a Family,” about his two lesbian moms, and then delivered 275,000 petitions demanding the BSA change it’s anti-gay policies, after a lesbian den mother was dismissed from a Scout troop in Ohio the liberal media got involved and super-charged the issue for all of America.

Now with pressure mounting it seems the Scouts have agreed to “carefully review” their ban on gays. Scout spokesman Deron Smith told Fox News, the policy would be “referred to a sub-committee” with the review process expected to be completed by May 2013.

+ + Are Homosexual Activists speaking for you, verne?

Right now in America, homosexual activists are aggressively targeting the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA) in an effort to radically redefine marriage in our nation.

They have the support of the President who has instructed the Department of Justice not to defend DOMA cases – something the DOJ is constitutionally bound to do – enforce existing laws; despite the fact that the majority of Americans support DOMA and the definition of marriage as being the union of one man and one woman it doesn’t matter …

The same can be said of the Scouts. The law has ruled they have the right and freedom to set their own policies and standards. But it doesn’t matter to the radical few who are out to silence the masses in an effort to radicalize our culture.

While writing this alert, we found a non-scientific poll by MSNBC asking citizens how they felt about this latest attack on the Scouts. By a margin of 57 percent to 43 percent, Americans support the Scouts.

verne, more than 50,000 had completed this poll. But like DOMA, your voice doesn’t matter if you don’t support a radical gay agenda.

You are the enemy to be silenced, and if we allow that to happen, the radical few will have their way with our culture!

+ + 275,000 Petitions Needed for Immediate Delivery to the BSA

We believe it is important for grassroots Americans to show support for the Scouts. That’s why Grassfire launched a national petition – giving citizens an opportunity to answer back to speak up to the radical few trying to change our culture.

But it’s not good enough to just respond with a lackluster petition effort. That’s why we’re calling for a massive response equaling or even surpassing the alleged 275,000 delivered to the Scouts by homosexual activist Zach Wahl.

Go here now to support the Scouts and this latest attack on their right to set their own policies:

http://www.grassfire.com/252/petition.asp

Sleazy Obama Trade Document Leaked -- This Guy's Administration Is A Cesspool!

Verne Strickland Blogmaster    June 12, 2012

 

WASHINGTON -- A critical document from President Barack Obama's free trade negotiations with eight Pacific nations was leaked online early Wednesday morning, revealing that the administration intends to bestow radical new political powers upon multinational corporations, contradicting prior promises.

The leaked document has been posted on the website of Public Citizen, a long-time critic of the administration's trade objectives. The new leak follows substantial controversy surrounding the secrecy of the talks, in which some members of Congress have complained they are not being given the same access to trade documents that corporate officials receive.

"The outrageous stuff in this leaked text may well be why U.S. trade officials have been so extremely secretive about these past two years of [trade] negotiations," said Lori Wallach, director of Public Citizen's Global Trade Watch in a written statement.

Sen. Ron Wyden (D-Ore.) has been so incensed by the lack of access as to introduce legislation requiring further disclosure. House Oversight Committee Chairman Darrell Issa (R-Calif.) has gone so far as to leak a separate document from the talks on his website. Other Senators are considering writing a letter to Ron Kirk, the top trade negotiator under Obama, demanding more disclosure.

The newly leaked document is one of the most controversial of the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade pact. It addresses a broad sweep of regulations governing international investment and reveals the Obama administration's advocacy for policies that environmental activists, financial reform advocates and labor unions have long rejected for eroding key protections currently in domestic laws.

Under the agreement currently being advocated by the Obama administration, American corporations would continue to be subject to domestic laws and regulations on the environment, banking and other issues. But foreign corporations operating within the U.S. would be permitted to appeal key American legal or regulatory rulings to an international tribunal. That international tribunal would be granted the power to overrule American law and impose trade sanctions on the United States for failing to abide by its rulings.
The terms run contrary to campaign promises issued by Obama and the Democratic Party during the 2008 campaign.

"We will not negotiate bilateral trade agreements that stop the government from protecting the environment, food safety, or the health of its citizens; give greater rights to foreign investors than to U.S. investors; require the privatization of our vital public services; or prevent developing country governments from adopting humanitarian licensing policies to improve access to life-saving medications," reads the campaign document.

Yet nearly all of those vows are violated by the leaked Trans-Pacific document. The one that is not contravened in the present document -- regarding access to life-saving medication -- is in conflict with a previously leaked document on intellectual property (IP) standards.

"Bush was better than Obama on this," said Judit Rius, U.S. manager of Doctors Without Borders Access to Medicines Campaign, referring to the medication rules. "It's pathetic, but it is what it is. The world's upside-down."

The Office of the U.S. Trade Representative insists that while broad standards require many medical patents and IP rules that would increase the price of medications, the U.S. intends to work with countries involved in the Trans-Pacific talks to ensure that the agreement does not restrict access to life-saving drugs.
USTR was not immediately available to comment on the newly leaked investment chapter of the Trans-Pacific deal, and has previously stated that it cannot comment on the terms of an allegedly leaked document.

That statement is belied somewhat by recent American efforts in other international negotiations to establish controversial medical patents that grant companies long-term monopolies on life-saving medications. Those monopolies increase drug prices, which impede access to medications, particularly in developing nations. The World Health Organization and dozens of nonprofit public health groups have objected to the standards sought by the Obama administration. Two United Nations groups recently urged global governments not to agree to trade terms currently being advocated by the Obama administration, on the grounds that such rules would hurt public health.

Such foreign investment standards have also come under fire at home, from both conservative sovereignty purists and progressive activists for the potential to hamper domestic priorities implemented by democratically elected leaders. The North American Free Trade Agreement, passed by Congress in 1993, and a host of subsequent trade pacts granted corporations new powers that had previously been reserved for sovereign nations and that have allowed companies to sue nations directly over issues.

But while the current trade deal could pose a challenge to American sovereignty, large corporations headquartered in the U.S. could potentially benefit from it by using the same terms to oppose the laws of foreign governments. If one of the eight Pacific nations involved in the talks passes a new rule to which an American firm objects, that U.S. company could take the country to court directly in international tribunals.
Public Citizen challenged the independence of these international tribunals, noting that "The tribunals would be staffed by private sector lawyers that rotate between acting as 'judges' and as advocates for the investors suing the governments," according to the text of the agreement.

In early June, a tribunal at the World Bank agreed to hear a case involving similar foreign investment standards, in which El Salvador banned cyanide-based gold mining on the basis of objections from the Catholic Church and environmental activists. If the World Bank rules against El Salvador, it could overturn the nation's domestic laws at the behest of a foreign corporation.

Basic public health and land-use rules would be subject to challenge before an international tribunal, as would bank regulations at capital levels that might be used to stymie bank runs or financial crises. The IMF has advocated the use of such capital controls, which would be prohibited under the current version of the leaked trade pact. Although several countries have proposed exceptions that would allow them to regulate speculative financial bets, the U.S. has resisted those proposals, according to Public Citizen.

Trans-Pacific negotiations have been taking place throughout the Obama presidency. The deal is strongly supported by the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the top lobbying group for American corporations. Obama's Republican opponent in the 2012 presidential elections, Mitt Romney, has urged the U.S. to finalize the deal as soon as possible.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/06/13/obama-trade-document-leak_n_1592593.html

Rouzer-Pantano 7th District Primary -- This fiasco ain't dead yet!

 VERNE STRICKLAND BLOGMASTER: This is a powerful letter written to StarNewsOnline by Tim Clinkscales of Wilmington. It provokes serious thought, and this is why I offer it here. If you have other issues about 7th District re-districting -- and David Rouzer's bid for the GOP nomination -- please share with me. Thanks!

 Letters to the Editor - June 13, 2012

Published: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.

Last Modified: Tuesday, June 12, 2012 at 10:01 p.m.

Although a month has passed since the primary election, it is important for the voters in the 7th congressional district to know the rest of the story concerning the race between Rouzer and Pantano. The voters deserve to know how redistricting and political cronyism snuffed our voice. The numerical facts are as follows: outside of Johnston County Ilario Pantano claimed 59 percent of the vote, a greater margin than his 2010 victory, and Rouzer had to get 81 percent of the vote in Johnston County, equating to 40 percent of his total vote count. 

Why does this matter? It matters because it shows that Johnston County was inserted in the district at the last minute by the N.C. General Assembly to achieve its own political agenda of having a yes-man (Rouzer) in the Congress. 

…

I would be interested to see how our local elected officials feel about one county 100 miles away trumping the vote of a majority of the other counties represented in the 7th District.

I ask you to contact your local elected officials and let them know that stacking the deck against the voice of the people to enable a political agenda is unconscionable and will not be tolerated.

Tim Clinkscales, Wilmington

Bill Maher: "Get over" the idea of American exceptionalism. Not likely, bozo.

Verne Strickland Blogmaster / June 12, 2012   

GET OVER THE IDEA OF AMERICAN EXCEPTIONALISM? I DON'T THINK SO, MR. BILL. WHAT I'M HAVING NO PROBLEM AT ALL WITH IS GETTING OVER YOU. IF I DIDN'T KNOW YOU BETTER, I'D SAY YOU ARE A POMPOUS ASS, AN ENEMY OF AMERICAN PRIDE AND PROGRESS, BORDERING ON BEING TREASONOUS. IS THIS YOUR SCHTICK? GET A LIFE. SOMEWHERE ELSE.  

On Friday's broadcast of the online-only "Overtime" portion of HBO's "Real Time," host Bill Maher explained his disdain for the phrase "American exceptionalism," lamenting we are a stupid country. This led Maher to explain why he thinks Mormonism will be America's religion in the next 100 years because, according to him, "It's a stupid religion and a stupid country, they were made for each other." Transcript below.

Question: Would it be better if the country just got over this notion of American exceptionalism?

Bill Maher, HBO: Oh, I think it would. This is one reason why I say, and people laugh at me, but I always say in a hundred years this country will be Mormon. It's a stupid religion and a stupid country, they were made for each other and I tell you, one of the things that Americans are going to love about Mormonism, when they find about it, is, first of all, Jesus is an American, and they love the idea that Mormon's embrace, more than anybody, that 'we are the super-duper star spangled best country ever and that if we have any flaw it is that we feel other countries feel bad because our awesomeness is so overwhelming.' But I think we should get over it.

REAL CLEAR POLITICS