Infowars Goes After Kyle, Big Mistake

Recently, Infowars (the president's favorite news network) reminded everyone that they are the saddest news network in the United States. But we aren't talking about Alex Jones. Instead, this column is based off a member of the Infowars B-Team. Meet Harrison Smith.  
This all started when InfoWars released a video called Tick Epidemic Sweeps America. While talking about ticks, the want to be Alex Jones shows pictures of politicians like Bernie Sanders and Alexandra Ocasio Cortez who he is pretty sure are socialists. By the end, he starts talking about "eradicating these blood sucking" ticks.
Now, somehow, people misunderstood this and thought he wanted genocide. Enter Kyle Kulinski, the host of Secular Talk who did a segment pointing out that Harris came out looking a little, Nazi-like. I don't know why.
Harrison saw this video and responded. Insert his video Science Proves Four-Year-Olds Are Smarter Than Socialists. 
The first thing I noticed about Harrison is just how much of a victim he is. Harrison opens the video by calling himself "the victim of a vicious leftist, socialist smear". He seems confused people were angry at his "hilarious and insightful video" where he borderline gave a death threat to democratically elected politicians. But I guess this is what Infowars considers "jaw-droppingly insightful".
Harrison Smith (who is the victim of a vicious leftist, socialist smear) really has three main points, only one of which has to do with Kyle. His attack on Mr. Kulinski (the first of his idiotic trinity if you will) is one of the saddest attacks I've ever seen. After giving "a little language warning" (because Infowars is rated TV-Y7 now) they start the attack.
You see, it makes sense Kyle doesn't understand Harrison's (who is the victim of a vicious leftist, socialist smear) "hilarious and insightful video" because he "thinks socialism works". Kyle doesn't actually think socialism works for the record. He's a social democrat, not a socialist. But I guess it's easy to defeat an opponent made of straw. 
Although, he does attempt to make it clear what he meant. You see Harrison (who is the victim of a vicious leftist, socialist smear) wants to "get rid of socialists by convincing them they are dumb". Just like you do with ticks. You go up to them and convince them that sucking blood is not a good idea. Instead of killing them. I don't see how anyone could get this confused with calls for killing.
His second point comes from a study (that he felt the need to print out). You see, Yale University did a survey and found that people don't like what he would see as freeloading. However, and he doesn't hide this fact by the way, the study was done on 4-year-old kids.
Of course, I was convened by this line of reasoning, I don't know about you. So I told many of my socialist "friends" about this experiment and how it the 4-year-old children proved him right. Unsurprisingly, most of them laughed at me, despite the fact I was just being part of the free market of ideas. Upon pushing it further I was banned from r/sandersforpresident. So much for tolerant liberal.
Harrison's (who is the victim of a vicious leftist, socialist smear) has one last point. You see, Kyle didn't care for the fact that Infowars, like all conservatives, seem to be obsessed with a certain South American country. 
Kyle takes issue with the knee-jerk reaction of "well what about Venezuela". So Harrison (who is the victim of a vicious leftist, socialist smear) in his complete wisdom, spends the rest of the video talking about Venezuela.   
So in conclusion, Infowars is still a joke. 

So Mr. Trump, How Are Those Tariffs Going

A while ago I wrote an article about the problems with protectionism that are being done by the president. In that piece, I made it clear protectionism, in all forms, doesn't work. 
Well, it turns out that the president seems to agree. As it turns out he's giving money to industries struggling because of these tariffs. This is taxpayer money, by the way, not his own money. Of which, on a side note, he has millions.   
In case you're a little confused, allow me to explain: Donald puts a tariff (basically a tax) on an industry. He then uses that tax money to bail out an industry that is hurt because of his protectionism. You would think simply not placing tariffs on products would be easier, but what do I know? 
For that matter, let's just talk about how the average consumer doesn't benefit in the slightest here. You cause the consumers to pay more, and give it to corporations. That sounds like the definition of cronyism. Shouldn't the corporations set the prices and if they needs help, or in this case more money, they can raise the price themselves? 
But again, what do I know. Besides the fact that no economists support free trade. Although who knows, maybe the president can beat the odds. Hope to see him win a Nobel Prize in economics in my lifetime. Or just not get a recession. After all, a man can dream. 

3 Ways The US Could Deal With Our Debt (None Of Them Are Particularly Good)

Yep, it's time to talk about the national debt again. In March of this year, our debt officially hit $21 trillion. That's not a good thing. 
Back in April, the president also hit a trillion dollar deficit. Meanwhile, he's focused on the trade deficit while not caring about the real deficit. This is bad for anyone who understands the bad effects debt can have on an economy. 
Greece, for instance, had a large amount of debt just before they had a recession in the late 2000's. Investors didn't feel like they could get the debt paid back, so the investors left. As a result, they are currently one of the worst places in Europe from an economic standpoint. 
The United States, while not as subject to this problem as Greece, could still fall victim to the same problem. Meaning we still need to think about the problem with having this much debt and figure out how to deal with the problem. 
Here are the 3 options the United States has, assuming we don't want to become part of China (which isn't a choice), to deal with our debt. None of them are particularly good or workable in our political system. But we should still get them are out there. 
#1-Raise Taxes
This one isn't unreasonable because it can't work, it's just unreasonable because the government won't let it happen. Americans love the vague concept of freedom, and with that low taxes. Even if the taxes go to an important cause, such as remaining a Sovern nation, they don't care.
Well, that may be a little inaccurate. After all, most Americans do favor a progressive tax on the rich as well believe the rich pay too little taxes. It's more Republicans in Congress have convinced people, or at least vote in a way where they act like they convinced people, that taxes are always bad and should never be raised.
This is a lesson that was learned the hard way by president George H.W. Bush in the 1990's. During the 1988 RNC, he said: "read my lips, no new taxes". However, he later found the national debt to be a giant issue and had to raise taxes. Mind you, due to the previous decade of Reaganomics this was basically putting a band-aid on one of 100 bullet wounds, but it was a good start. 
That same decade, Bill Clinton also tried to do the same thing. His debt reduction act, which also included tax hikes for the nations richest, only passed because vice-president Gore broke the tie in the House. 
#2-Cut Spending
This is not going to happen. Republicans will pretend they will do this, yet they never do. After they got the House with Boehner, the Senate with McConnell, and the White House with Trump, they still haven't cut spending.
Democrats are a little better then Republicans at this, considering how they don't want to just spend on the military, but they aren't much better. 
Not only that, but we can't cut spending in every way needed. Medicare is still important, as well as roads and schools. And of course, police and a military.   
#3-Just Print Money
This one is just obviously a bad idea. This will lead to inflation which will cause an economic crisis similar to what happened to Germany in the early 30's, and we all know how that ended out.
This will also be the solution the government will more than likely go with. That will be fun.

Old Man Biden Screams At Clouds

Well, it's official. Joe Biden is running for president in 2020. Okay, he may not have said it yet, but he has said he will announce rather he will or not in January. But in politics, that basically means he will. "Maybe" doesn't mean "maybe" in politics. 
So he's running, and he does have a lot going for him. He was a senator for over 30 years and became vice-president under Obama. He's also really good with fundraising meaning it's clear he does have a chance. 
Not only that, but he's also been unofficially campaigning for about a year now. Yet, despite being a Democratic Senator for so long, he seems to be running as something other than a Democrat. I don't know what he's running as, but it certainly isn't a Democrat. Let's use a three strike system to show you why this is clear.
Strike One: In January Biden was giving a speech where he addressed the issues at young voters heart. Being in his 70's, and entering politics in the 1970's, many would call him out of touch. He showed this was correct. Telling young people "give me a break" after making it clear he has "no empathy" is the most out of touch things a human could say. I ask Joe to go back to the 70's and remember what people thought they heard when another Democrat told them what to wear when they were cold. Then realized, that's basically what he actually said. He lost young voters with that statement, one of the Democrats biggest voting blocks throughout all of history. 
Strike Two: What Biden thinks of the time when "the political system worked". Back during the Roy Moore vs. Doug Jones election Biden talked about how old he was. Saying he worked with "old-fashion Democratic Segregationists" that he would go have dinner with. He was second in charge for the first black president by the way. I'm sure the black people who were treated unequally under the law would disagree with how big of a tent the Democrats want to have. So he also made black people and by extension most minorities, very unlikely to support him. 
Strike Three: Also in January, Biden was meeting with the Council of Foreign Relations. During this meeting, he bragged about trying to interfere with the political system in Ukraine. Meeting anti-war voters aren't going to like him, who have been loyal Democrats since the Nixon years. 
So no one is going to vote for him, yet he has the connects to be the nominee. He will need to be smart, but every 3rd thing he says is beyond idiotic.
In other news, Bernie Sanders has announced he's publishing a book after the midterms. This is something many politicians do just before they run for president, meaning it's likely he will also run in 2020.
Both him and Biden have the connections to be the person who can stop Donnie from having a second term. Choose wisely Democrats, we don't need almost a decade of the Donald.       

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. 

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 Weird World Of Libertarian Memes

Just a little warning, the next column is going to be kind of, well, big. So, in order to balance it out, here's a column making fun of libertarian/ancap memes. In order for this to work, I went to a bunch of right-wing libertarian twitter pages and found some "high quality" memes. Enjoy them, with my commentary. 

Because, as we all know, poverty only exists in statist countries. Hong Kong, for instance, the place with the freest market, has 1/5 of the population in poverty. 

So people who support European socialism, stay with me here, aren't socialists. Most of them are social democrats who want a hybrid system. Yet, if you support universal healthcare, people like them will still call you a socialist. 

Reminder: Bernie Sanders is still the poorest member of the Senate. If he can get 3 houses while having basically nothing by Senator standards, that's a very different problem. 




























Um . . . why would someone write the declaration of independence if they didn't want the United States to become an independent
nation? It's in the name after all. 

Notice how none of those books are about history. Mainly because no society has survived without government. After all, if they did you would think they would still exist today. 

Only anarchists don't understand the difference between economic and social issues. 

Speaking of things ancaps don't understand, no one is forcing you to vote. Maybe it would make sense if other anarchyballs were choosing, but otherwise, this is just idiotic.

It's always fun when people who don't know how loopholes work talk about how long the federal register is. Take the Volcker Rule for instance, which made it so commercial banks had to get permission to engage in investment banking. At first, it was 4 pages, when it was passed it was 892 pages. I'll give you 3 choices as to what those next 888 pages are.
A-Funny drawings of Calvin and Hobbes  
B-More Regulations
C-Loopholes
C is the correct answer. 
So in conclusion, libertarians are wrong.