Throwback: Ben Shapiro's Quest For Life (As Long As They Aren't Already Alive)

If there's one thing everyone knows about Ben Shapiro, it's that he's a huge pro-lifer. Just Google "Ben Shapiro abortion" and you'll find video after video of his explaining why abortion is wrong. Ben Shapiro cares about life, as he always has and claims he always will.
That's why I was a little surprised when I found a column he wrote in mid-2002. As the War in Afghanistan was heating up people were worried about us killing civilians and other innocent people. Pro-life Ben Shapiro responded to this by writing a Townhall column called Enemy "civilian causalities" ok by me.  
A few things: Most notably "ok" is not a word. The actual work is "okay". You aren't a teenager texting, you're a nationally read columnist. Also, I wouldn't personally random people in a country enemies just because of where they live. 
It should also be pointed out that this was before Ben understood how paragraphs work, meaning he literally just wrote it as a wall of text. But let's see what he actually has to say:

I am getting really sick of people who whine about "civilian casualties."

It's only a crime of war. Why do you guys care so much? You people want America to be a nation among nations. Silly liberals, we're a nation above nations. 

Maybe I'm a hard-hearted guy, but when I see in the newspapers that civilians in Afghanistan or the West Bank were killed by American or Israeli troops, I don't really care.

Side note: Imagine how Ben would react if a liberal wrote an article with the countries reversed. 

In fact, I would rather that the good guys use the Air Force to kill the bad guys, even if that means some civilians get killed along the way.

Fun Fact: US terrorist experts have determined killing innocent people radicalizes normally non-radical people and turns them into terrorists. So Ben, why do you hate America?

For the past decade, the United States and Israel have been attempting to prove their moral superiority by attempting to minimize civilian casualties.

Wait until Ben hears about drones.

The Afghans are fundamentalist Muslims. They didn't seem to mind too much that their women were treated like dogs or that the Taliban enforced Shariah (Muslim law). So frankly, it doesn't matter to me if some of their "civilians" get killed for involvement with the enemy. 

"Everyone else sucks, so why can't I"-Ben Shapiro. Also, why is civilians in quotes?
Anyway the rest of the column is just support for Israel. Plus, considering this column is just a wall of text it's near impossible to follow. So that's it. But remember, Ben is for life as long as the lives haven't been born yet. 

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.  

  

     

  

      

  

  

Throwback: David Koch Runs For President

Note: This is more or less an updated text version of a video I made in January 2018. You can watch it here if you so choose. This post have been overall improved since the original version and as such is the definitive version.  
You ever heard of a libertarian. I don't blame you if you haven't, after all they typically aren't considered a big threat in our political sphere. However, despite what libertarians would have you believe, there is one group of people that love them, big business. David Koch ran as vice-president on the Libertarian ticket in 1980, it's as bad as you think. Those who watch The Thom Hartmann Program may know about this (watch it here), but Bernie also posted it on his website (read it here).
So what does it say? Well let's find out together.

We urge the repeal of federal campaign finance laws, and the immediate abolition of the despotic Federal Election Commission

So right of the bat we see where the Koch brothers lie of issues. They're spending $400 million and the midterms by the way. So of course this is going to be on the list. 

We favor the abolition of Medicare and Medicaid programs

I guess 45,000 people every year isn't enough for the Koch brothers. To be fair I don't think they don't want people to die, I just think they really don't care. Also I'm going to be skipping some of these to keep from repeating myself.

 We favor the repeal of the fraudulent, virtually bankrupt, and increasingly oppressive Social Security system. Pending that repeal, participation in Social Security should be made voluntary

Senior poverty only went down because of Social Security, yet they seem to ignore that. But even then, Social Security would work if they stopped spending the money (notice how no other country has to deal with it going bankrupt). 

We support the eventual repeal of all taxation 

Tfw you try to make Reagan look moderate on taxes. Of course this would lead to a boom-bust cycle, of course these people don't care. 
Also remember people, low taxes are good for everyone and not just the rich. Trust David Koch to tell you that. 

We advocate the complete separation of education and State. Government schools lead to the indoctrination of children and interfere with the free choice of individuals. Government ownership, operation, regulation, and subsidy of schools and colleges should be ended.

Because private schools never lead to indoctrination.

We support the abolition of the Environmental Protection Agency

Would you like some Koch brand smoke with that air? Also here's there opensecrets.org page if you're curious. Notice how many of them deny climate change.  

We demand the return of America's railroad system to private ownership. We call for the privatization of the public roads and national highway system

Anyone who knows how the toll road system worked during the industrial revolution knows how this will end up. Mainly, a large amount of toll roads. Hope you have quarters with you. 

We advocate the abolition of the Food and Drug Administration

Go to the supplement industry for your medicine if you really think that's a good idea. 
I think you get the idea at this point. Just be happy these nuts have basically no influence when it comes to actual policy. 


  
  

Throwback: My God, Hillary's America Is An Awful Movie

With Donald Trump recently deciding to pardon Republican commentator Dinesh D'Souza, and I wanted to write an article about him. At first, 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. If I ever do, I promise I will do something related to that book. 
However, then I remembered a review I wrote of his film Hillary's America a while back. You see, I use to want to be a film reviewer and even did a few on Blogspot back in the day. This is one I never published and only had on a google docs page for quite a while. I figured in honor of both the recent news and Dinesh making a new movie, I should release it to the public.The only edits I've made is to do things like improving the grammar in order to make it readable, otherwise, it's in its original state, as well as to make it fit better for Blogspot. I should also warn you, it's a little long and not the best. So enjoy. 

Hillary’s America is a 2016 “documentary” made by conservative filmmaker and author Dinesh D’Souza. Upon its release, it has been somewhat of a milestone in the documentary genre. For instance, it was the first documentary to win a golden raspberry award for worst picture. I decided, out of pure curiosity, to subject myself to this film and what I found was a goldmine of complete nonsense.

I think the best way to get an idea of what a film is like is just talking about how it begins. After all the start of a film is by definition what your audience is supposed to see first so many filmmakers use it as a chance to put there best foot forward. This movie, for instance, starts with people in a choir singing about happy days [the exact lyrics are “happy days are here again”] while we see the camera go back to the democratic party logo [the donkey one] as a string puppet. Cut to an animated segment of many infamous people in the Democratic party in a surprisingly decent, if not kind of weird [oh who am I kidding, very weird] scene.
The visuals in this movie are actually a great example of how dishonest Dinesh can be. Seeing as this is a “documentary” that talks about things from as far back as the 1800’s it was understandable Dinesh was unable to get recordings of it. Due to this a lot of times when Dinesh is talking he puts on footage of some of his friends acting out the events in question. This I don’t have an issue with as I see why Dinesh would do it [he doesn’t want a large chunk of the movie to be just him talking over pictures of people] and he doesn’t try to pass it off as real.
It’s when he does that I do have a problem, such as when he finds a secret room in the DNC containing pictures of [and even slave chains from] famous racist democrats. Or at the start of the movie when he’s in jail and he does things like read a book with a flashlight when everyone is supposed to be asleep.
Oh yeah, Dinesh starts the movie in jail. This is how he puts what he was convicted off at the beginning [and I mean the first time we hear his voice] of the film:

It all began when the Obama administration tried to shut me up

 Whoa, those are some big claims, it would be a shame if that was a downright lie. What actually happened was Dinesh was found guilty of breaking campaign finance laws that had existed long before Obama. He also took a plea deal which is odd because if he was innocent why would he say he was guilty? For that matter, how do you even violate campaign finance laws post Citizens United Vs. FEC?
But no instead, Dinesh is convinced it’s because his previous film, 2016: Obama’s America, was just so right the Obama administration couldn’t handle it. I guess his predictions were so accurate and showed how bad Democrats are and how great Republicans are that the movie had to be censored by not trying to restrict it in any way. I’m sure you don’t need to be convinced but here’s what the crystal ball himself said he knew was going to happen.
1. Obama deliberately reducing America’s power in the world or weakening our military. Funny he can’t give one example of Obama releasing a budget that cuts military spending, but still. For the record, here’s a graph of military spending by country from the same year this movie came out:

 2-Obama will weaken our allies and strengthen our enemies. The examples Dinesh uses specifically are Iran and Cuba. What Dinesh seems to leave out is we are enemies with these countries because we installed and supported dictators [The Shah and Fulgencio Batista respectably]. But even then remember that graph I just showed you, try to find either Iran or Cuba on it.
3-He will put major industries under government control. Like that time he forced all airplanes to have scanners and, no wait that was George W. Bush. I know, he means Obamacare, just couldn’t resist.
As for Obamacare, it kept the private health insurance industry intact. It forced people to pay a fine if they didn’t have private healthcare, how is that bringing it under government control? Plus it was a Republican plan for decades. Nixon came up with it, Senate Majority Leader and Republican Presidential Nominee Bob Dole proposed it in 1996, Mitt Romney passed it as governor in 2004, The conservative Heritage Foundation wrote papers about how great it was, and both Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich and Senator Chuck Grassley supported it. But a Democrat passed it so I guess it’s bad now.
He also mentions Dodd-Frank, which was weak when compared to Glass Steagall which it was trying to restore.
4-Obama will double the national debt. This one I was surprised by because if Dinesh wanted someone who would cut the deficit he should be praising Bill Clinton, the last president to balance the federal budget. I think Dinesh may have heard of him considering his wife is in the name of the movie.
5-He will slash defense spending. This was kind of hard to do while both doubling the debt and still having the largest military in the world but he found a way.
So Dinesh goes to jail and brings up politics with convicted felons who are obviously the type of people that regularly engage in politics. Of course, because they are bad people, they are Democrats. It’s so bad that when they see Hillary Clinton announce she’s running for president they all start clapping [as totally happened in reality by the way].
However while in jail Dinesh learns everything he needs to know about cons. Which leads to Dinesh finding out the true con artists, you see where this is going.

It is at this point of the film Dinesh starts his main case, around a half-hour in. That the democratic party was, and still is, the party of racism.

For instance, Dinesh goes after how both the first democratic president and founder of the democratic party owned slaves. With that in mind I’m sure Dinesh hates these following people just as much:

-Benjamin Franklin

-John Hancock

-Thomas Jefferson

-James Madison

-George Washington
Considering that everything these people did for this country while being huge racists, I assume Dinesh considers the US to be a racist nation.
To be clear, I’m not defending slavery. I’m saying that at one point it was considered morally acceptable and sometimes people who change the world fall into the trap of not questioning their society in every way. I don’t hold it over the head of Andrew Jackson for owning slaves for the same reason I don’t hold it over the head of many of the founders.
Plus the last president to own slaves wasn’t a Democrat. It was the 2nd Republican president, Ulysses S. Grant who did own a slave from 1857 to 1859. Do I hold that over the heads of the Republican party? Of course not, it was at a time when that was okay.  
To give you an idea of how ignorant what Dinesh is arguing is, the idea that as time goes on people change, I figured we should jump ahead 100 years. After all, if nothing ever changed within the Republican party I should be able to look at say, the 1956 platform, and see no difference between that and the quotes and stories of major Republicans or ones who had been in office recently.

We are proud of and shall continue our far-reaching and sound advances in matters of basic human needs—expansion of social security—broadened coverage in unemployment insurance —improved housing—and better health protection for all our people. We are determined that our government remain warmly responsive to the urgent social and economic problems of our people.-1956 Republican platform

Republicans believe the best way to assure prosperity is to generate more jobs. The Democrats believe in more Welfare- Ronald Reagan

We shall continue vigorously to support the United Nations.-1956 Republican Platform

Trump budget seeks 37% reduction in UN’s peacekeeping funds-Bloomberg

Procedural changes in the antitrust laws to facilitate their enforcement-1956 Republican Platform

 The Republican promise is for … less regulations-Rand Paul 

 I think you get the idea, people change with time.
So you may be wondering why, throughout this review, I haven’t really talked much about Hillary Clinton. Well despite the movie being called Hillary’s America the movie doesn’t really talk about Hillary Clinton. It takes him over an hour to really get into her, and as for his points, what do you expect. No seriously, what do you expect? Rather it be because of all the points he’s made at this point or because you’ve heard all the points since the 90’s, what do you expect?
Okay, there’s one other thing I feel like needs to be mentioned, that’s his nonsense attack on Planned Parenthood.

First Dinesh goes after the fact that the founder of Planned Parenthood, Margaret Sanger, was a racist. Mind you [as far as I’m aware at least] Sanger never owned slaves meaning [by Dinesh’s own logic] Planned Parenthood is still better than the United States.
The other point he has is the infamous racist call in which someone asks Planned Parenthood could be used specifically to perform abortions on a minority. Now let’s ignore that this call led to a paranoid man shooting up a Planned Parenthood, we shouldn’t but we will. Let me show you the problem with complaining about this and instead of making it a Planned Parenthood we’ll make it a Pizza Hut.

Employee: Thank you for ordering Pizza Hut, may I take your order

Customer:Yes I would like a meat lovers pizza with extra cheese, some crazy bread, and sauce.

Employee:Anything else?

Customer: Yes, can I make sure my money only goes to white people?

Let’s say you say yes

Employee:Sure

Customer:Okay great

Now let’s say you say no

Employee: No

Customer: Well then never mind and I’m never ordering here again. I don't support white genocide.

As a result, of this person just lost a customer as well as lost the money of the person in question. This could also get someone fired since they just may have also caused a boycott. With that in mind, I think I see why Planned Parenthood put up with a racist caller.   

 

Throwback: Dennis Prager Praises Hypocrisy

Some of you may be familiar with the right-wing radio host/ founder of Prager "University", as well as open supporter of "maybe a man-eating lion" Donald Trump, Dennis Prager. Mainly, how much of a hypocrite he is. 
For instance, how can a man love the free market but at the same time sue YouTube for his failure? How can he say the parties never switched but also say that JFK was a Republican? How can he say he hates crony capitalism but also be for school choice? Well, it turns out his New York Times bestseller (but remember they're biased against him) Think A Second Time explains why. 
You see imminently after the chapter on why people who don't like astrology are wrong because Marxism is worse, oh yeah did I not mention that:

The notion that a planet's location determines events is hardly more absurd than the belief that history is determined by "scientific laws" of dialectical materialism. Every major prediction of Karl Marx has failed to materialize. In fact, the very opposite of what he predicted came about. Yet, despite its lack of rational basis, its unparalleled series of failures, and capitalism's ability to thrive and improve the lots of its working class, many intellectuals continue to believe in Marxism.   

Yeah, this book is kind of weird. But anyway chapter 18 is titled The Virtue of Hypocrisy, it's just as amazing as you would think. 

The end of hypocrisy won't mean that everyone is always living up to moral standards. It will mean that there are no longer moral standards against which people's behavior can be judged hypocritical.

Dennis, you were on thin ice when you called your book Think A Second Time, but this proves it. How does it go? War is peace, freedom is slavery, double standards are the only standards. But maybe I'm being unfair, let's actually look at his reasons:

the televangelist Jim Bakker was labeled as such [a hypocrite] for his sexual encounter with a young devotee. . . Hugh Hefner . . . slept with thousands of young women devotees over the course of a life [and] was never labeled a hypocrite 

The girls Jim Bakker slept with were underage, not just young. Meanwhile, I am unable to find a single story (that isn't from an insane right-wing website) that says that Hugh Hefner slept with anyone before they were the age of consent. What Hefner did (sleep with many young women) may be morally wrong, but what Jim Bakker did was definitely pedophilia. Your example doesn't even make sense, but I'm nice so I'll hear you out. 

Those who don't claim to be religious are rarely judgeable by external standards. Irreligious people therefore can almost never be deemed hypocrites. How can we ever judge them hypocritical when there is no higher standard by which to judge them? 

The standards they themselves have. Now what you need to do is convince people that your standards are the correct ones. Something you seem to try to do considering you have an entire book on how great the 10 commandments are. Shouldn't you not need to do that if you were correct?
But even then, many of your hypocrisies have nothing to do with your religious viewpoint (although you do have many of those). Don't believe, look at the start of this post and notice that none of the hypocrites that I pointed out had anything to do with your views on religion. They had to do with your views on economics, politics, and education, not religion.  

Many people want to do whatever they want and not be judged. Religion doesn't allow for that.

Isn't the whole idea of your political philosophy that people should be able to do whatever they want? You are Mr. "the bigger the government the smaller the citizen" after all. 
But at the same time, I think both Dennis and I can agree that not every principle religion spouts is good (remember, he just said "religion" and not anyone in particular). You have people on PragerU all the time that talk about how bad radical Muslims are (which you are correct on) and yet you talk about how great the vague concept of religion is. This isn't me calling you a hypocrite by the way, that would mean I believe you have standards in the first place. 
I would like to end with this, if you would like to make the case that hypocrisy doesn't make you wrong then that's perfectly fine. However, you instead have to twist that into religious-based nonsense due to you being unable to mask your true intentions. To make a long story short, you're the exact same today as you were 20 years ago because you haven't yourself even really thought a first time, let alone a second.