I'm sure many of you have seen the recent video in which Steven Crowder lists times liberals have been wrong throughout history. So that gave me an idea, why not go through his video and not only debunk the list he came up with, but also make my own list to compete with his.
So here we are with the Top 5 Republican FAILS Throughout History (with 5 Crowder fails)!
Crowder "Myth" #1-Peak Oil
I mean where would people get an idea that a non-renewable resource is something that we can run out of. The fact is that at some point oil production rates are going to have to decline because there is only so much oil in existence. Unless you are really going to argue that we have unlimited oil, in which case I would like to laugh at you.
Also, I think it should be pointed out that peakoil.com, you know the website about peak oil, says we will reach it around 2020. Just figured that needed to be mentioned. This is the first graph on the article from a website called Peakoil.com.
Myth #1-Paris Climate Agreement
You remember this, claims that by the way, Crowder himself has made. A deal that is non-binding anyway so even if it would hurt the economy, you don't have to pull out of the deal in order to not have those disadvantages.
But that's even giving them more credit then they deserve. The truth is the Paris Climate Agreement would help the economy But that's all bad because of globalism and Agenda 21.
But even if all of that weren't true, even if it didn't help the economy and was binding it would still be worth it to help stop the effects of Climate Change.
Crowder "Myth" #2-AIDS
Yeah, of course, he mentioned this one. Even though his views on AIDS have been debunked he's still spewing the same thing.
The only thing I feel like I need to point out is Crowder is still making the argument that getting AIDS is your fault and we should fund diseases that people can't control if they get like cancer and diabetes. But, by his own logic wouldn't it be there fault? I mean according to him the only way to get AIDS is to have gay sex with random people or shove dirty needles in you. But can you really get throat cancer without chain smoking 20 packs of cigarettes in a day? Of course, you can but he doesn't know that.
Myth #2-GRID
Yeah, remember this one. You know Gay-related immune deficiency or what we used to call AIDS, you know Acquired Immune Deficiency Syndrome. You see, we used to think that the only way you could get it is if you were gay, turns out that's not true.
To be fair, it is believed that most straight people only started getting it because of bisexuals (their boyfriends had boyfriends) but if only gays could, how would that matter?
Crowder "Myth" #3-Reagan's Star Wars Program
Crowder just sort of complains that people didn't like the fact that Reagan used this program to get welfare (during record high military spending and a record high deficit). Also, he goes into this weird rant about how the British people turned there back on Winston Churchill after the war. Ignoring that time he compared Labour to Nazi's just before the election and that he wanted to invade Russia.
Myth #3-Reagan's tax cuts
As I mentioned in the last article, saying Reagan cut taxes is a very misleading statement. Once payroll taxes are taken into account the bottom 20% had their taxes increased by 15%. The 2nd poorest 20% (21%-40%) also had their taxes increased by 0.6%.
Now, none of that would be a problem if the economy did well under Reagan, the problem is it didn't. The economy reached its worse point since the Great Depression under President Reagan, doesn't sound like a good one to me.
Crowder "Myth" #4-Model Cities Program (More Or Less Just An Attack On The War On Poverty)
Let's get one thing out of the way, the war on poverty HAS worked greatly. Despite two economic collapses, poverty has both stayed the same and remained LOWER than it was before the war on poverty started.
As for his claims about Chicago ignores that it was free trade deals that caused Chicago's economy to be ruined. I'm not even making a statement about free trade as a whole (in fact I'm usually for it) I'm just stating facts.
Myth #4-New Deal
Let's just keep this to Social Security for the sake of ease. Republicans have been talking about how it doesn't work and how it's unsustainable when none of that is true.
Bill Clinton got social security up until the 2070's, yet it will go bankrupt in the 2030's. That's because they spent the money so it will go bankrupt, so they could try to privatize it.
Crowder "Myth" #5-Venezuela
Okay, he has us there.
Myth #5-Iraq
Let's go down the list
-Sadam did not have any involvement in 9/11
-Iraq did not have WMD's
-The people in Iraq hated us after we invaded them
And that's just off the top of my head
I could spend a whole post going into all the myths Republicans spread during the Iraq war, but this post is already getting long and I don't have the time.
So I figured it's time to talk about someone who I've wanted to address for a very long time.
Recently on twitter, I decided to have a little fun and take a shot at Ann Coulter fans. Apparently, that is an act of wrong think as within hours my twitter notification was filled with people who hate thin-skinned like me and just scream nonsense whenever someone they love is criticized like a normal person does.
I was then informed that I just don't understand the genius of Ann. You see, it takes a true intellectual to repeat Republican talking points while sounding a little mean. Then I chose to have a little more fun and asked an Ann Coulter fan which of her work he would recommend to someone like me. I asked which one, to which he told me this:
Any of them. Amazed that one could be so bold as to wager a default dismissal of her prodigious talent. Read and learn. In fact, perhaps a beatitude is in order...Blessed are the meek for they shall....
So here's the deal. I'm going to go through the first chapter of one of her books, in this case, her 2013 work Never Trust a Liberal Over 3-Especially a Republican, and we're going to see her "prodigious talent" together. Luckily for me, all of that is available in the Amazon preview so I don't have to give her any money to read it.
The first thing I would like to point out is that Ann really needs to get her talking points figured out. For instance, look at this line from page 2 of her book:
[The left] act like [Reagan] was a good partener with liberals in winning the Cold War
Okay, no one does, but okay. What makes this odd is that on page 3, the very next page, she says this:
[L]iberals claim that Ronald Reagan didn't win the Cold War, it just ended.
So liberals act like Reagan was with them during the Cold War, which they also claim he didn't win. Again, this is literally one page apart.
She then goes on to complain about how liberals use the courts to bully conservatives. You know, for a lawyer she does have an awful understanding of how the law works.
The whole point of the Supreme Court is to not have the constitution change due to the majority rule. This is also why they are appointed and not elected.
Also, I have no idea where she got the idea that the only unpopular opinions of the courts are liberal. The majority of Americans are against money in politics and yet since the 1970's more and more cases have allowed more and more money in politics. Do I really need to remind Ann how unpopular Bush V. Gore was?
Now let's see her ignorance of history:
Reagan's tax cuts gave a huge boost to the US economy-as did tax cuts under . . . Calivin Coolidge.
Yes Ann, let's go back to the economic policies of the 1920's. What could go wrong? As for the claim about Reagan's tax cuts, I have no idea what she's talking about. Once you take payroll taxes into account the bottom 20% had a tax increase of 15% under Reagan. On a side note, the top 1% did get a tax cut of 15%, funny how that works.
Okay, what else, what else? Oh here's her making a bad prediction:
[W]hy are any . . . bussinessmen showing up in [the Republican] presidental primiaries? They're never going to get the nomiattion
If only. Look it may seem like I'm cutting a lot out, and that's because I am. This is because of what bothers me most about Ann Coulter, she's boring as tar. Take out all the insults and times she fakes being edgy and all you get is Republican party talking points.
I mean I guess every now and then you'll get something crazy (soccer is what's wrong with America, D-Day is a communist plot, her weird hatred of the family members of 9/11 victims) but that's few and far between.
What I'm getting at is, I'm not her biggest fan if you catch my drift.
I would like to end with this. The original plan for this article was that I would look through many of the columns Ann put in this book and talk and about the ones that seem interesting. That fell apart when I realized, none of them were interesting. But I'll just give you some of the titles to these pieces and let you decide if they're worth your time:
-On This Aborted Fetus, the Democrats Plant Their Flag
-Only His Hairdresser Knows For Sure
-Obama Birth Certificate Spotted in Bogus Moon Landing Footage
-Negroes with Guns
-Freeze! I Just Had My Nails Done!
-Guantanamo Loses Five-Star Rating
-America Needs El Tipping Pointo
-Watching MSNBC Is Torture (To be fair, she isn't wrong in this case)
-Media: Halliburton Paid Dick Cheney to Commit Rape in Iraq
Oh yeah I forgot to mention, she isn't funny either.
Now if any of you need me I'm going to be someplace else, hopefully someplace where I'm not thinking about Ann Coulter.
So, the last week has been pretty interesting if you're someone who follows the right-wing media. Ever since the shooting in Texas last week, the right-wing media seems to have been angrier that media covered it than they are at the shooting itself.
You may think that's an exaggeration, but you would be mistaking. Conservative Youtuber Blaire White took to Twitter to prove that:
Studies have shown that mass shooters thrive on media attention. STOP SHOWING THEIR FACES, they do not deserve fame.
I would like to know which studies show that, but that's beside the point. A little rule of thumb for my readers, whenever someone just says "studies show", they haven't read those studies. Also, didn't you give attention to radical liberals when you recorded yourself being attacked for wearing a Trump hat? I guess next time a conservative is attacked you can thank Blaire White.
Meanwhile over on Fox, Tomi Lahren is saying the shooters name is "not worth mentioning". Mind you this is the same woman who said that Obama is friendly to Jihadists, so what does that make her? I may not know much about the shooting, but I do know that the shooter was not a Muslum.
NRA president (and committer of treason) Oliver North also went on Fox News Sunday and had this to say on the shooting.
They’ve been drugged in many cases. Nearly all of these perpetrators are male. ... Many of these young boys have been on Ritalin since they were in kindergarten
Guns don't kill people, Ritalin kills people. The only way this statement could have been worse is if he started it with "studies show".
You made be wondering why I'm writing this article. After all, I already have an article on this topic that was published Monday. Well while that article covered a lot there was one thing I forgot to go after. I think this idea has been best given by the twitter account Educating Liberals:
the biggest reason for the rise in school shootings is because of the decline in moral values in this country.
I've noticed this idea appear a lot, made even more radical by the replies to these tweets who really think a theocracy is a good idea. Don't believe me, here are some of the replies to some of the tweets I showed you in the previous article as well as the one I just showed you exactly as they were written.
Bill Mitchell:
What people don’t understand is these weapons have been around for a very long time without these issues. The issue is we have raised the most nihilistic and violent generation our country has ever seen. They are just scratching the surface of the evil they can do.
I would personally call the generation that tried to leave the US to keep slaves a little more immoral, but that's just me.
Candace Owens:
When does society tell the left that “we tried it their way and it’s been a total disaster” and it’s time to fix it! The left is the poorly raised child to whom mommy and daddy won’t dares say no to. That needs to change or we’ll be joining the muzzlames soon in the septic tank!
Maybe if you guys didn't screw up the sex education people who were 16 (seriously, name a single person that would actually do this that isn't a teen mom) weren't getting pregnant as often than we wouldn't have that problem.
The breakdown of the family and home - and they are trying best they can to keep God out of it all. It is the evilness in one’s heart that allows one to take such actions.
Less than 5% of the prison population is Atheist, just saying.
The core of this ongoing tragedy is the breakdown of our ethical, social, family and religious structure. We did have family dinners without burying our faces in an electronic device. We use to watch the start and finish of the tv schedule with a picture of the American flag.
I have an article planned on how the internet isn't giving you depression, so I'll say it for that.
Educating Liberals:
Yep!!! Kids who are not taught that #GOD Loves them, and to Reverence HIM, are left spiritually 'bankrupt' and wide-open for demonic influence. #SchoolShootings #2A
I just going to make a Jerry Falwell joke and leave this person alone.
It's because they took God, and American values out of school!
Well in order for it to be "American values" we're going to need a lot more lighthouses.
The complete destruction of family values by one of the political parties contributes to nearly everything that happens in our society. So yes, BIG factor.
He is right when he says one political party is destroying family values. The party whose leader has 3 failed marriages (including his current one) and is best friends with a former bigwig in the party who left his wife because she had cancer. Which party is that again?
We have the nihilistic Heffnerized nirvana the leftist 60's hippies and their offspring wanted: sex, drugs, and, well, they thought they were getting rock and roll but ended up with hip hop instead. Families and values, out the window. School shootings are one of the outcomes.
I take it a hippy stole his girlfriend in high school and he's still really bitter.
I can laugh but the fact is the idea they spread is complete nonsense. The fact is moralism is much MORE likely to kill than even the worst forms of nihilism (I don't consider myself a nihilist by the way).
For instance, Joseph Stalin had a very strict sense of morality, as did Mao Zedong. They were so strict that if you disobeyed them they were killed. Yet no one would consider a single thing they did moral on any level.
"But what about religion?"
Well were the kings during the middle ages moral? Are the Catholic bigwigs who molested kids moral? Hitler (regardless of what his religion actually was) used Christianity in propaganda constantly, because of his sense of morality by the way. The fact is religion is often the excuse people have for already existing moral views, not what changes or creates moral views.
Let's say any communist dictator had been a nihilist, meaning they did not believe in any morality. If so people like Castro, Stalin, or Mao would have no reason to believe that communism is morally superior and as such have less of a reason to kill over it.
What I'm getting at is, these people really don't understand anything.
Now I think I've debunked any case they can make. *Sees Ted Nugent blaming Diets* Of course.
Before we begin I would like to say that I planned to have this article released on Monday. But Mitchell angered me so much that I felt like I had to get to that first. Sorry about that, but somethings need to be taken down first. With all that said, enjoy the column.
One of the favorite talking points of the new-right is the idea that they are fighting the establishment. From their president ripping Wall Street during the campaign to Paul Joseph Watson trying to make conservatism cool, it seems that taking on "the establishment" is the new talking point of the red party. So I think it's important we look at what the president did last week and see if he's really keeping up with the anti-establishment message.
#1-Support For Israel
Despite what Jake Tapper seems to believe, supporting Israel is the establishment position. We give them over $3 billion every year and have for many years. Yet the anti-establishment president gave them all of Jerusalem first thing last week, completely removing any idea of a two-state solution.
None of this should be surprising considering the president's son met with Israel on the campaign trail, in which Israel expressed support for Donnie. Donald Trump is so anti-establishment, he supports the biggest establishment out there.
Mind you, it seems that the president seems to be aware of how this contradicts his rhetoric. After the decision, his first defense was that other presidents said they would do the same. Because that's how you rage against the machines, same Bill Clinton, George W. Bush, and Barack Obama also said they would do the same things you did.
#2-Everything about Gina Haspel
Yes, Gina Haspel was confirmed for CIA director, and everything about this proves how much Donald Trump loves the establishment. One should really need to start and end with the fact that she engaged in torture under George W. Bush to see where Donald's true support lies.
And let's not forget that the whole reason Donald needed a new CIA director the sectary of state. There the president is, fighting the deep state by putting them in charge.
Join us next time where Republicans call Donald Trump anti-establishment for praising the establishment. Or as I call it, a rerun.
I remember I was going through the Cursed Boomer Images twitter account (@WeWuzBoomers) when I found one of the worst things I've ever seen on twitter. Bill Mitchell saw the recent Texas shooting and, like a good Republican used it as a chance to blame something he doesn't like.
Just a hint. If a student is a 1) loner, 2) quiet, 3) is bullied, 4) loves violent video games and 5) wears a trench coat to school - you can pretty much profile them as a potential mass shooter
I had 3 reactions to this tweet and, after realizing there is no possible way I could be too mean towards him with this blog post considering what he just said unless I encouraged violence towards him (which I don't), decided to just give you all three.
1-Guns don't kill people, trench coats kill people
2-I take it then you bully them until they do commit a mass shooting because Bill Mitchell doesn't care how many people did as long as he's proven right.
3-Since you seem to love lists I figured I would give you the first 5 words that came to my mind when I first saw this tweet. 1)What 2)is 3)wrong 4)with 5)you.
Mind you, Bill's twitter is filled with all sorts of hot takes that show you how much of a Republican he is. Here are a few of my favorites:
#Democrats hate God. God started America. Democrats hate America. Makes perfect sense.
The single biggest #HateGroup in America is the #DemocratParty and they hate America most of all. The amusing part is, very few will actually even try to deny this. They're actually proud of it. P.S., Second thing they hate the most? 3 letters, starts with G, ends with d.
Democrats hate God and Israel. At least they're consistent.
These are just some of the many takes that prove Al Gore correct which Bill spits out on a daily basis. However, it's undeniable his mass shooting take is easily his worst. The thing that makes this the evilest is that how he seems to be saying that if someone is being bullied you should bully them more. To any school administrators reading this, Billy over here seems to think that if you see a kid being bullied you should be more worried about the victim becoming a shooter than you should be with stopping the bullying.
Mind you, that's still not the hottest take I found on this subject. Candace Owens, or the person who wants a legal fund so she can sue media outlets that are mean to black conservatives, had one of the worst takes possible.
There is no law, no president, and no congress that can be responsible for raising our children. I wonder which networks & journalists will be brave enough to ditch the usual political banter, and start addressing the real issues at the core of these shootings. #TexasShooting
When someone asked her what the "real issues" are the results were downright comical:
The breakdown of the family. The mocking of religion The over-medicating of society.
Let's break this down one by one.
"The breakdown of the family" is a bad thing, however, it's not happening. And even if it is, where's her proof it would lead to mass shootings?
"The mocking of religion" just doesn't make any sense, especially when you consider Candace's views on Muslims. In most of the middle east mocking Islam is punishable by death and yet, as Candace herself has pointed out many times, many Muslims are violent. In fact, her saying that could be considered mocking the religion of Islam, and as such she could be considered part of the problem.
"The over medicating of society" is easily the most harmful right-wing conspiracy theory. Excuse me for being dismissive of an idea that led to a man trying to kill himself, but please shut up. Look, Penn and Teller: Bullshit has tons of episodes on this, just go watch those. They're instant play on Hulu and I don't have time to go through every reason why this is so wrong.
While not as harmful, Turning Point USA founder Charlie Kirk still had some takes so hot that the weather channel just couldn't predict them. Here are some of my favorites:
Did you know: Over the last 25 years, the U.S. gun homicide rate has fallen by over half while the gun violence victimization rate has fallen by about 70% Gun crime is rapidly decreasing as conceal carry becomes more abundant and people are allowed to legally protect themselves
Did you know: If you put "Did You Know" at the beginning of any statement you don't have to cite any sources for Republicans to believe it.
The NRA is continually the only organization to get blamed for actions their members do not commit
Did you know: The president of the NRA is Oliver North who sold weapons to Iran and gave that money to terrorists in the 1980's. For a group that isn't a terrorist organization, they sure seem to be friendly with terrorists.
When tragedy strikes, if your immediate instinct is to restrict someone’s rights you are most likely a liberal
I'm just going to back-to-back it with this:
If the Bush FBI put a spy in the Obama campaign people would be in prison by now
But easily, the worst reaction by Charlie and his buddies is the blame on the mainstream media.
Maybe we should stop showing the killers face on TV and start showing the armed heroes that prevent these shootings Stop saying his name. Stop giving attention to murders. The attention is partly why they do this. Our media creates these monsters
Yes Charlie, let's stop informing people when a mass shooting happens. To be fair, this is an idea many people have thought of so it is worth taking seriously. Many of you may have seen this video by AlternateHistoryHub making the same argument.
My response to this argument is actually not as much anger as some would think because they aren't entirely wrong. However, the issue isn't that they are covering these shooters, it's that they are trying to humanize them.
Within hours of the shooting, you can already find stories about how the shooter was bullied or trying to find some way as to how this wasn't his fault. Compare this to how we teach kids about the Nazi's, Stalin, or terrorists (typically because they weren't white or American but that's another story). We don't pretend like they had any kind of point instead, we only teach them to see these views as the evil they are.
Treat the shooters as the evil they are and I can promise you the cycle of violence will be far less common.
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.
So it seems like Donald Trump really wants to be friends with Israel. On Monday Donald Trump declared that it was a "Big day for Israel" because Trump officially opened the US embassy in Jerusalem. Less than a week after he canceled the Iran Deal because Israel told him to.
Trump has also invited some people to the opening of the embassy. The most notable of which are pastors John Hagge and Robert Jeffress. In case you're wondering, this is John Hagge:
God says in Jeremiah 16 — "Behold I will bring them the Jewish people again unto their land that I gave unto their fathers" — that would be Abraham, Isaac and Jacob - "Behold I will send for many fishers and after will I send for many hunters. And they the hunters shall hunt them" — that will be the Jews — "from every mountain and from every hill and from out of the holes of the rocks." If that doesn't describe what Hitler did in the Holocaust — you can't see that. So think about this — I will send fishers and I will send hunters. A fisher is someone who entices you with a bait. How many of you know who Theodore Herzl was? How many of you don't have a clue who he was? Woo, sweet God! Theodore Herzl is the father of Zionism. He was a Jew that at the turn of the 19th century said, "this land is our land, God wants us to live there". So he went to the Jews of Europe and said, "I want you to come and join me in the land of Israel". So few went, Herzl went into depression. Those who came founded Israel; those who did not went through the hell of the Holocaust. Then God sent a hunter. A hunter is someone who comes with a gun and he forces you. Hitler was a hunter. And the Bible says — Jeremiah righty? — "they shall hunt them from every mountain and from every hill and out of the holes of the rocks", meaning: there's no place to hide. And that will be offensive to some people. Well, dear heart, be offended: I didn't write it. Jeremiah wrote it. It was the truth and it is the truth. How did it happen? Because God allowed it to happen. Why did it happen? Because God said, "my top priority for the Jewish people is to get them to come back to the land of Israel". Today Israel is back in the land and they are at Ezekiel 37 and 8. They are physically alive but they're not spiritually alive. Now how is God going to cause the Jewish people to come spiritually alive and say, "the God of Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, He is God"?
Sorry that the quotes kind of long, it's just I couldn't find any way to cut it down without watering down how much of an anti-Semitic nut John Hagge is. Jeffress just says Jews are going to hell, but it's still odd that Donald let this man into Israel. Mind you pro-Israel people are the same group that got angry when Jimmy Carter wrote a book that was critical of Israel, but that's beside the point.
Mind you, I don't know what to expect when you consider that Israel has one of the most Warhawk foreign policies in the world. While I did cover Israel's foreign policy with Iran on the 5/8/18 edition of The Ephrom Josine Show, I neglected there much more controversial foreign policy with Palestine. Or as they know it as in Israel, the place that Israel politicians talk about committing genocide against and putting into concentration camps.
Israel's treatment of Palestine has always been something that no other nation could get away with. It was basically just created one day by the UN in 1947 with no input from Palestine. Then they continued to expand their presence in the area through settlements.
It doesn't help that Israel hasn't exactly been nice to the people whose land they took. Not only are the Palestinians under constant occupation but they are also under constant blockade. And let's not even get into the many attacks that Israel has done on peaceful protesters. Including this Monday, I guess Donald was right, it really was a big day for Israel.
So all of this leads to one very important question, why are we still supporting them? That's just something that I can't figure out for the life of me. Even when the Palestinians come up with a perfect peace deal Israel, with the help of the US and the UN, strike it down.
And it's hilarious that people honestly believe that the UN is to harsh on Israel after they let it run around unchecked. Every US Senator signed a letter saying the UN needs to stop being as harsh on Israel, I don't even know how we be less harsh on them but I guess we'll have to try. Jake Tapper said this on CNN while using whataboutism in order to make Israel look better. Meanwhile, the UN hasn't even condemned Israel in a way that matters since 2002.
The segment ends with vague innuendo suggesting the only reason these countries are “singling out” Israel was antisemitism. “You have to ask, is Israel truly deserving of 86 percent of the world’s condemnation,” Tapper pontificated in his best Glenn Beck “just asking questions” mode, “or possibly is something else afoot at the United Nations?”
This is the country that Donald Trump wants us to be even friendlier with. If you ask me we're far to close to them as it is.
Hello there, didn't see you come in. I can see you're at least somewhat interested in who I am considering you're reading my blog. So sit down, relax, and make yourself at home. After all, I'm going to talk about some serious topics, and I want you to feel comfortable.
First off, I should make one thing clear, I consider myself to be a liberal. This may sound like something that's considered normal by the mainstream media, but the truth is liberals are often made fun of in the actual mainstream. Not the fake mainstream people like Ben Shapiro seem to believe, I mean the mainstream media that we see in the real world.
I mean MSNBC is considered some far left safe space, but as an actual leftist, I can tell you nothing is farther from the truth. Meanwhile, they fired Ed Schultz for covering Bernie Sanders who was the farthest left person in the 2016 election. Then when Ed goes and works for RT America he gets called a puppet for Putin, but that's beside the point.
Meanwhile, any online political discussion is filled with right-wing bias. After all The Ben Shapiro Show is one of the most popular podcasts right now. Anyone on the left who doesn't see why that's an issue does not know who Ben Shapiro is. You know, the guy who calls Obama anti-semitic, said Patton Oswalt is anti-semitic for using the term neo-conservative, and is strongly against identity politics.
I joke but Shapiro has actually shown to have a serious of many awful ideas. Such as thinking Arabs like to live in open sewage, thinks porn should be illegal, thinks healthcare is like a chair (I take it he will go to a furniture store instead of a doctor next time he has the flu), thinks being gay is a mental illness, supports ethnic cleansing in Israel (I'm barely even being hyperbolic), thinks the mainstream media bullied poor Gerald Ford (I'm not joking), and I could go on but this more than likely became a gish-gallop long ago. But people take him seriously, he's one of the most popular online conservatives and has a large reach. Do you really think people like him didn't help cause Donnie to get elected? If so, you are beyond naive.
These people get nothing but more popular over time, and that's what is truly scary. The Daily Wire is only growing, Steven Crowder is only growing, Prager"U" is only growing, Alex Jone is only growing, Paul Joseph Watson is only growing, Rebel Media is only growing, Lauren Southerns is only growing, and I could go on all day. If Trump is going to try and run again I figured it's only fair someone goes after the people that allowed him to get so popular in the first place. That person is going to be me, this is why I write (I said it).
So sit back, relax, and enjoy the writings of this madman.
