Ben Shapiro Expects The Spanish Inquisition [and OWNS it] (The Ephrom Jo...

Peak Pence (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 159)

BREAKING: Tusli Gabbard Will Run In 2020

How Diverse Is Congress?

This week, the entire media fawned over just how diverse the new Congress is. "The future is female," "the future is black," "the future is LGBT," "the future is Muslum." 

But let's actually break it down: Right now we have 2 Muslims, Rep. Omar and Rep. Tlaib (About 0.4% in Congress), yet we have almost 3 million in the United States (almost 1%). We finally have our first bisexual senator (Senator Sinema), yet about 1/3 of American young people identify as bisexual. So 1% of the Senate is bisexual and represent 33% of the population. 

But let's not forget this, all of these new representatives still support the same 1%. It doesn't matter if they're Female, LGBT, Black, Asain, Mexican, or the good old fashion White Straight Christian Man. 60% of all Senators are millionaires, as are 40% of representatives. This is twice what is required to be in the top 1%. 

So why do they want us to focus on this? For the same reason they wanted us to focus on how Tlaib said she would impeach "the motherfucker" Donald Trump. They want to keep us divided and focused on race, especially when they can make themselves look progressive as it happens. It's the media version of "I have a black friend," except that's not even what the conversation is about. 

Next week, I'll tell you the other main way they keep us divided. 

Ben's Fear of Trans People (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 130)

#CowardlyCoulter Defends Herself (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 109)

The Catholic Church, Pope Francis, and Matt Walsh

Well, another sex abuse scandal took place in the Catholic Church. Is anyone really surprised at this point? Seriously, are Catholics even surprised at this point? I'm not. Only a few years ago they were caught shuffling pedophile priests around like a game of 3 card Monty.   

Of course the church has always had a history of pure evil. Rather it be censorship, repression, or murder and war. However, the excuse I always here from self-described catholic apologist is that "was in the past". Which is true. However, the only evolution they've made are the most basic things someone could imagine. They no longer kill for leaving the religion? They should have never started doing that in the first place. 

Others tell me that the crimes of Islam are much worse than the crimes of the church. This isn't entirely wrong. But if your best excuse is that your belief system isn't as bad as the one that kills gays, makes you get gender reassignment surgery if your homosexual, doesn't treat women like human beings, and is partly guilty for the biggest terrorist attack and mass shooting in US history then your faith is pretty bad. 

Higher ups in Islam kill. Higher ups in Catholicism rape children. These are both objective facts. 

Let's not forget how much of an open secret this has been throughout all of history. It was first publicized in 1985, over 30 years ago. The church has done very little since then to stop this problem because they don't care. 

Pope Francis was forced to deal with the fact that yet another sexual abusive scandal happened. With such ground-breaking and controversial previous takes as "Climate change is real" and "If god made everything, I guess that includes being gay" said basically what you'd expect.

You see, Pope Francis is against child abuse. Not against it to the point where he wants to do anything about it. But he doesn't like it enough to the point where he's willing to complain about it just before flying his private jet to complain about climate change. And let's not forget when someone asked him about his links he refused to answer. But I'm sure that's just a coincidence. Just like how reports are now coming out that he knew about this and said nothing.

That is when the media bothers to report on it. The mainstream media has been spending so much time defending Francis and the church that it's honestly sad. You would think they were trying to censor them. Which does actually make sense considering they are the Catholic Church. Even the people who are pretending to be critical are failing right into the traps of the church.

Enter Matt Walsh, Daily Wire columnist and someone who I have spent much time taking about before. In his recent column The Worst Bullies In America Matt is angry that LGBT activists got an orphanage shut down for, as he puts it, "the crime of being Catholic". 

I have two quotes from this column I would like to share with you. However, before I do I figure I should remind you he wrote this in defensive of a Catholic owned organization that has the sole purpose of caring for kids during a sex abuse scandal involving raping kids:

It is almost irrelevant to not that the organization's original adoption policy [of not allowing homosexuals to adopt] was . . . keeping with reason and science. Studies consistently show that . . . children win same-sex parented households have higher rates of . . . abuse.

The one and only "inequality" [homosexuals have] left [to protest] was the rule prohibiting active homosexuals from donating blood, due to astronomically higher rates of HIV in the gay community. But even this is under attack and being repealed. The LGBT lobby will risk giving HIV to hospital patients if it means they get to win another battle.

I would like to remind everyone Matt is a self identified Catholic and father of small kids. If Matt's thinking is correct, most notably that statics mean everything and 100% of the time apply to individuals no matter how old they are, then shouldn't he give up his own kids? Even buying Matt's excuse it's the fault of gays within the church (it makes about as much sense as it sounds), that still means gays are common within the church. So should Matt not be allowed to have his kids. Maybe. Honestly, I'm just sick of these excuses.  

   

         

No Sympathy For Pedophiles

The Daily Caller may just be the worst news network in America at this very moment. I know that's something columnists say a lot, but I can prove it's true. 
If you don't remember it The Daily Caller was created by Tucker Carlson, who is currently on Fox News. It was also co-founded by a man named Neil Patel. Who is Neil Patel? A former policy adviser for then vice-president Dick Cheney. So you know they're just great people.
Now before we get to the article that angered every reasonable person in the US, let's talk about what this website normally thinks about man-boy love. Previous articles have been titled How the Alt-Left Promotes Rape And Pedophilia and BBC Gives Platform To Pedophile Who Calls It A "Sexual Orientation". Both of them were highly anti-pedophiles. While also blaming the Democrats for allowing to happen, but one step at a time.
It should also be noted that this "news outlet" is not a big fan of the LGBT. These columns include things like After They Nail The Christian Bakers, They're Coming After You. So again, it's clear they aren't really big fans of them.  
This is all important to understand if want to know why the recent article Pedophiles Believe They Should Be a Part of the LGBT Community. Here's the difference though: Before it was paranoia, now it's real. While not as big as The Daily Caller might want you to think, pedophile apologists do exist on the left. 
One of the most infamous examples of this involves a man named Todd Nickerson. In 2015 Nickerson published, a now deleted, article on Salon titled I'm a Pedophile, But Not a Monster. Many thought Salon was trying to normalize pedophilia. Not helped with the byline asking "would you be willing to listen?".  
Vice later picked up this man's story. It should surprise no one the amount of pure support they gave this man. Saying things like "Media . . . often conflate[s] pedophiles with child abusers". Yet it seems like no one at Vice can figure out why. 
These two websites, despite the different ideology, are playing into each other hands. When a left-wing website defends pedophilia, which we covered a few columns ago how much Republicans use to love to bring it up, the right imminently jumps on it. As they should by the way.
The only way any liberal can claim to fight for LGBT progress is if they completely reject this notion being a MAP (minor-attracted person, nice way of saying pedophile) is the same as being anything but 0 on the Kinsey Scale. It is that simple.

The Future of the Supreme Court

Supreme Court Justice Anthony Kennedy has officially announced that he plans to retire. This means that the president can now appoint another justice to the highest court in the land. 
Now, I'm not as worried as many people on the left seem to be. After all, Kennedy was a Republican and got appointed by Reagan in 1988. However, that doesn't mean you still shouldn't be worried because he's going to be replaced with another Republican. That is still worrying. Not helped by the fact that, while Kennedy would commonly toe the party line, he was at least sometimes willing to ignore what they party wanted and do something good for the people.
For instance, he was part of the majority opinion in Planned Parenthood v. Casey. Which stated that no government could place an "undue burden" on getting an abortion.
Anthony was part of the majority opinion in Lawrence v. Texas which struck down laws that banned sodomy. He ruled part of DOMA unconstitutional in the United States v. Windsor case. And, most importantly, he ruled in favor of legalizing same-sex marriage in the Obergefell v. Hodges case. All of which were great things for homosexuals. 
The justice also took the majority ruling in Texas v. Johnson which legalized flag burning. Showing that he at least cares about the first amendment.  
So why should you be worried? Well, Donald Trump has proven that he has been on the wrong side of all these issues. For instance, he appointed Mike Pence as Vice President of the United States. And his attitude on reproductive rights and gays is well, flawed to say the least. So Donnie hasn't really shown himself to have the best record with appointing people.
But what's his history with appointing people the Supreme Court? Well, that's a pretty easy question, after all, he has already appointed one. Ladies and gentlemen meet Neil Gorsuch. Republican "new right" commentators love Neil Gorsuch. That should tell you all you need to know about him, but I'll go on.
First off, he sided with Hobby Lobby in the Burwell v. Hobby Lobby Stores, Inc. case. If you don't remember that case, it was the one where Hobby Lobby tried to ignore an ACA regulation that said they had to provide birth control because of religious freedom. Let me rephrase that in a way that actually makes it accurate. Hobby Lobby tried to save money by not providing employees with birth control and tried to get away with it by claiming religious freedom. Neil Gorsuch either bought it because he's an idiot or went along with it because he's a shill. 
Let's also not forget his hatred for human euthanasia. Gorsuch even wrote a whole book about it. Because healthcare companies have to make money somehow. 
Basically, Gorsuch is a corporate shill. Expect whoever comes next to be the same. This is going to be painful.          

  

Throwback: Dinesh D'Souza's Awful Argument Against Gay Marriage

A while back I wrote a review of the Dinesh D'Souza film Hillary's America. However, when I wrote that article I made it clear that wasn't my first choice:

I was going to do a throwback on some chapters from his book Letters To a Young Conservative, but I was unable to get a full copy in time.-Me, about a week ago 

Well, thanks to the great folks at archive.org, I now have access to his book for the next two weeks. Remember, it's not piracy if it's from a .org. 
The chapter I picked to do an article on is chapter 23, Against Gay Marriage. It is Pride Month after all. But before I do that, let's look at some of the other chapters present in the book:
-How Reagan Outsmarted the Liberals
-Why Professors Are So Left-Wing
-How to Harpoon a Liberal
-Speaking As a Former Fetus . . . 
-Why Liberals Hate America 
It should be noted that I may have to go back to this book because there's honestly a lot to cover. But let's look at why the gays annoy D'Souza so much:

"Recently, I saw a group of gay men marching in a pro-choice rally . . .I asked myself, what possible interest could homosexuals have in this issue?"

I don't know Dinesh. Why do you, a straight man (and for as obvious as that joke would be Dinesh doesn't talk about gays enough for me to think he's in the closet) have an opinion on gay marriage? It's like people can have opinions on issues that don't personally affect them. 

"Then I realized that gay activists hope to legitimize their lifestyle by promoting a view of sexuality that is completely severed from reproduction."  

 You can also blame that on condoms, the morning after pill, spermicide, implants, medical surgery, and I could go on. 

"As the political activism of gays today suggests, homosexuality has become an ideology."

The pro-gay marriage conspiracy to, allow people to do whatever it is they want. Not only that, but Dinesh has figured out the 3 step plan for the gay agenda.

"The first step is tolerance. Here the argument is, 'You make think we are strange and disgusting, but put up with us'. And many Americans go along with this."

Okay, that seems like I perfectly valid argument. I mean they aren't hurting you, so who honestly cares? 

"Then the gay activists move to stage two. This step may be called Neutrality, and it involves a stronger claim: 'You should make no distinction between heterosexuality and homosexuality'"

Again, sounds like a perfectly valid claim. 

"If this step is conceded, the gays are ready to advance to stage three. This step may be termed Subsidy 'We have been discriminated against for centuries, so now we want preferential treatment'"

3 years after gay marriage has been legalized nationwide and this has still not happened. Just saying.

"It does not appear that very many gays want to marry"

Then why did any of them fight for it? 

"Marriage could put a serious crimp in the promiscuous lifestyle of many male homosexuals."

Because as we all know straight people are never promiscuous. Ignore the fact that the average person has 7.2 sexual partners in their lifetime. Louisiana, which has supported every Republican since 2000, has the highest amount of average sexual partners per person at over 15! So maybe it's conservatives who don't want to get married because of there promiscuous lifestyle. Or promiscuity has very little to do with rather or not you'll get married later in life, just saying. 

"The real goal of the gay movement is to break down moral resistance to the homosexual lifestyle."

He's on to them. 

"Not long ago homosexuality was considered an illness."

Tfw when you're so conservative you want to go back to a time where gays were considered mentally ill. 

"Now moral criticism of homosexuality is described by gay partisans as a kind of psychological disorder." 

 According to who?

"The person who has moral qualms about homosexual behavior is said to be 'homophobic'."

Homophobia is not a mental disorder, that would mean there's an excuse. It's just normal bigotry. 
Dinesh then goes after journalist Andrew Sullivan for being pro-gay marriage.

"Sullivan's argument can be condensed to the slogan 'Marriage civilizes men'"

 How about age civilizing people? Or lack of energy civilizing people? Or responsibility civilizing people? Or needing to work for someone and not bash them over the head so you can be paid civilizing people?

"Marriage doesn't civilize men, women do"

How?

"Ronald Reagan made this point many years ago"

Of course he did. Why wouldn't he? 

"If not for women . . . men would still be running around in animal skin and wielding clubs. . . male nature needs to be tamed, and that taming is done by women." 

Am I the only one who finds that kind of sexist? I mean I know a lot of gay men, and none of them are ever "running around in animal skins" or "wielding clubs", let alone both. For that matter why only gay men? Why aren't asexual men? What about bisexual men? Are they just "running around in animal skin" or "wielding clubs" or both or neither? 
I'm sure most of you know of the Kinsey scale. If not, it's the scale of human sexuality related to orientation. 0 typically meaning 100% heterosexual, 6 meaning 100% homosexual, 3 meaning 100% bisexual. What exact number on the Kinsey scale equals "running around in animal skin and wielding clubs". 
But to make sure, I asked a real-life gay person who will go anonymous: 

Me:Hey [his actual name], can I ask you a question?

Gay Guy: Sure

Me: Do you ever run around in animal skin or wield clubs?

Gay Guy: No

 But he wasn't letting me off his case that easily.

Me: Are you sure?

Gay Guy: Yeah I'm pretty sure 

Now, I also had to make sure he wasn't just an exception.

Me:Do you know any gay men who do?

Gay Guy: Uhm, no. I don't think so.

But maybe Dinesh can come up with some real examples of this happening:

"Untamed male nature can be witnessed in . . . gay men who have had hundreds, if not thousands, of anonymous sex partners." 

Citation needed. 

"Marriage is defined as the legal union of two adults of the opposite sex who are unrelated to each other."

Well, was but this book in 2002. I love the right-wing notation that marriage isn't something we humans just made up one day. Heck, we changed the definition when we made it straight people only. 
That's really all the arguments he makes, so as you can see, Dinesh is kind of an idiot.