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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
When someone starts getting into politics one of the most important questions, in fact, one of the only questions is where do they stand on the important issues. So many of them, instead of actually forming opinions, choose to go to the political compass test in order to get a basic idea. This test has also been one many YouTubers take in order to have their audience understand who they are. But one question has still not been answered, is it worth anything?
So, in order to properly answer this question, we need to look at some more questions. Specifically, the questions on the official political compass test (link here) in order to find out if any of them are, well, good questions. In order to test this, I took a handful of questions from this quiz and decided to see if they have any major issues. So let's figure this out, together.
If economic globalisation is inevitable, it should primarily serve humanity rather than the interests of trans-national corporations.
This is the first question of the test and it shows one of the biggest problems with the test. It refuses to take into account that people regularly lie. Or, to use less loaded terms, most people don't like to think of themselves as the bad guys. No one is more hated than "the establishment", whatever that means.
Let me give you a real-world example. Many people believe that we should deregulate because it will cause jobs to come back here. Is that in favor of the corporations? They wouldn't. Afterall they're creating jobs.
Also, in the United States corporations are people.
I’d always support my country, whether it was right or wrong.
No one thinks like this, even the people who we think are like this, aren't like this. Reagan for instance, human super-patriot, only got anywhere by criticizing Carter. George W. Bush did the same thing with Bill Clinton. They didn't always support their country.
Our race has many superior qualities, compared with other racists
This question is directly asking you rather or not you're a racist. Even David Duke, the former KKK leader, doesn't think he's racist.
The enemy of my enemy is my friend
This is a meaningless platitude. The test also gives you no context so this could mean anything.
On a side note: When this country used this platitude we armed Osama Bin Laden.
Controlling inflation is more important than controlling unemployment.
Most people aren't economists. Plus most economic philosophies don't care for either inflation or unemployment.
Land shouldn't be a commodity to be bought and sold
This question is directly asking you "are you a communist". Again, no one says they're something that most people believe being against is a "no-duh". Especially a philosophy most people believe killed 100 million people.
Those with the ability to pay should have access to higher standards of medical care
I think this question is trying to ask "do you believe in universal healthcare", but there's one huge problem, that's not what this is asking. The vast majority of people who believe in UHC are fine with private healthcare being an option.
Abortion, when the woman's life is not threatened, should always be illegal.
Again this question is trying to ask "are you pro-life" but it doesn't really ask that. It's better than the healthcare question to be fair, but not much.
A lot of people, including many pro-lifers, would also include rape and incest in times abortion is fine. That would make them pro-choice according to this question. Even though most of society would say otherwise.
All authority should be questioned
This question is asking you "are you an authoritarian". And even then even most authoritarians would answer yes. They had to rise to power somehow after all.
All people have their rights, but it is better for all of us that different sorts of people should keep to their own kind
This question is asking you rather or not you support "separate but equal". Which most people believe is the same as asking rather or not you're a racist.
Good parents sometimes have to spank their children
This question has nothing to do with politics.
When you are troubled, it's better not to think about it, but to keep busy with more cheerful things
Second verse, same as the first.
In conclusion: These questions are meaningless and using them to describe your ideology is idiotic.
So it's official. The president wants to make Judge Brett Kavanaugh the next Justice for the Supreme Court. So I figured it's fair that we actually look at the man Trump appointed and see what it says about the person who appointed him. So here are 5 things you need to know about the new Justice.
1. He's Best Buddies With George W. Bush
Kavanaugh was one of the main voices that led to the outcome in the Bush v. Gore case. Bush then went and appointed him to the DC court of appeals. So, he basically owes most of his career to the second Bush.
He was also buddies with Karl Rove who praised Trump for choosing him. Here's Brett being buddies with Karl Rove:
But remember, Donald Trump is anti-establishment.
2. Pro-Lifers Love This Guy
To give Brett credit, he did say he doesn't want to overturn Roe v. Wade. However, that doesn't anti-abortion groups aren't in love with this guy. Meanwhile, the only case he's ever done involving abortion was when he said an illegal immigrant could not get one. He's a blank slate, and that could mean anything. But his ties make many afraid he could go in the wrong direction.
3. Believes Obamacare Is Unconstitutional
Yes, a supreme court justice disagrees with the supreme court. Even though they determined the ACA was allowed Brett disagrees. Again, someone on the Supreme Court should more than likely understand how the court works. He also isn't a fan of net neutrality.
But don't worry. He does support the NSA. So at least he has that down.
4. He Was One Of The Main Voices In The Effort To Impeach Bill Clinton
Yup, another Republican lawyer who took place in trying to impeach Bill Clinton. Although he happens to also be against the Muller investigation. If you can't tell, he's kind of a partisan hack.
5. He Takes The Constitution Literally, Except When He Doesn't
If you watched Trump announce his pick for the court you would know the thing he values the most is someone who likes the constitution as is. Yet, NPR found him saying he supports "the spirit of the law" as well as the letter. Which means he believes the law is whatever he thinks it should be. So that's everything you need to know about Brett Kavanaugh. In conclusion, god help us.
Politics is filled with double standards, everyone knows that. It's well established that American politics, especially within the political commentary sphere, is filled wall to wall with hypocrites, hacks, and partisans. Oh my!
However, what no one seems to point out is how many of these double standards seem to benefit the right and put more restrictions on the left. While some of these examples have been talked about before, this column will put it in a new perspective. That being focusing on how Republicans have used these double standards to put the left in a lose-lose situation in order to make it so, no matter what, they are right in more ways than one. Even when it is obvious the right is wrong.
Here's one of my favorite examples, look at how the new-right has responded to the masterpiece cakeshop incident. Here's how Dave Rubin, in a video with nearly 18 million views, responded when talking about in on Prager"U":
A government that can force Christians to violate their conscience can force me to violate mine. If a baker won't bake a cake, find another baker, don't demand the state tell him what to do with his private business.
Okay, that's all fine and good but PragerU, the channel that made the video that was just quoted, tried to sue YouTube for restricting some of their videos. Yet no one said "find another website" and "don't demand the state tell YouTube what they do with their private business".
This puts anyone with a consistent position in a giant lose-lose position that makes it so anyone who disagrees can scream the leftist hates the first amendment. Let's say you agree with Rubin and not with Prager, that means you hate freedom of speech because you don't think YouTube should have to put these videos up. Now let's say that you agree with Dennis and not Rubin, that means you hate freedom of association because you don't think companies should not be able to choose who they serve.
This isn't even the worst example involving this case. This has been brought up before, but Paul Joseph Watson did the same thing just with more loaded language:
Twitter has suspended know Alt-Right extremist Seven Crowder . . . Censorship of conservatives MUST be addressed by lawmakers.
Vs.
. . . No one should be forced to provide a service. Just as a gay-owned print shop shouldn't be forced to make signs for the Westboro Baptist Church.
Republicans are currently abusing it with the idea of "civility". To be clear: you should be nice to someone you are debating, and of course being rational and not being overly rude is important. However, context is always important. If someone is being, well uncivil, then no reasonable person should have an issue with you being equally as "uncivil" back.
Remember when Samantha Bee insulted Ivanka Trump? What every conservative news outlet, and even many liberal ones, ignored was that she said that in response to ICE taking kids away from families, which Bee felt was worse. Even then, many said Bee should have been fired.
Compare that to when Donald Trump was also obscene when talking about certain countries. Some supporters, such as Paul Joseph Watson, defended the comments (while censoring it). Others, like A.F. Branco, complained that networks covered it. The largest argument, made by people like Paul, was that the president was telling a "harsh truth" and that people who were against it were just "snowflakes".
Again, this is a clear lose-lose situation. If you are against what Bee said, that means you're against "civility". If you are against what Trump said, that means you just hate "harsh truths". Once again, Republicans publish you for having consistent positions.
However, if you still have any doubt that political discussion has a right-wing bias, just look at the tactics commonly used by the pro-life movement. Let me show you the perfect example of this.
Recently, the pro-life group Live Action, one of the most popular anti-Planned Parenthood groups which is widely believed to have leaked many videos on PP (including the recent claims they aid people who commit sexual abuse), posted this image on their official Twitter account:
This isn't even a one-off thing from some small internet group by the way. Jesse Helms, a Republican Senator who even spoke at the 1983 March for Life rally, did the same comparison in his memoir Here's Where I Stand. In this book, he wrote that "[abortion] is indeed another kind of holocaust".
This is actually very similar to something else, that being the "Holocaust on Your Plate" campaign PETA launched in the 2000's. In this campaign PETA put images of meat production next to pictures of death camps and used captions to make it clear they consider them to be the same thing. This campaign was, obviously, hated and is currently one of the most infamous ad campaigns in US history. The other one is considered a perfectly acceptable moral philosophy that people who disagree must consider. Guess which one is more associated with the right and which one is more associated with the left.
Here's another example, Live Action recently wrote an article on Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger, calling her a racist. Here's the preview the organization put on Twitter:
Planned Parenthood founder Margaret Sanger:
Was a eugenicist
So was the person who created fingerprint science. In fact, that person created eugenics. How many articles does have Live Action about how evil fingerprint science is? The answer is 0.
Spoke to the KKK
Was that the same KKK that endorsed a certain president of the United States? Despite this Lila Rose, the founder of Live Action, is "very pleased" with Donald Trump.
They then repeat this point another 4 times without giving any variation. But her point is still valid, Margaret Sanger was a racist. However, it should be noted that Live Action is located in the United States. So if a place is bad because the person or people who found it were racists, what does that make her country? Thomas Jefferson for instance, the author of the Declaration of Independence and 3rd president of the US, owned and raped his slaves.
While on the topic of Lila specifically, she is one of the prime examples of this. As already established, Lila is a pro-life activist. For instance, recently she posted this:
Children are not the property of adults, nor are they less valuable.
Whether they are teens, pre-adolescents, toddlers, infants, fetuses, or embryos.
Every human at every stage of life has EQUAL dignity.
Abortion is lethal ageism against the most defenseless humans.
This point more or less comes down to "age is only a number", and I can only think of two groups who make that point. One is pro-life activists like Lila, and the other is pedophiles. Yet, for years right-wingers like Rick Santorum and Ben Carson (both of which were Republican presidential candidates during the 2016 election) claimed, with very little push back for a very long time, that legalizing same-sex marriage would lead to acceptance and legalization of pedophilia. It should also be noted that both Santorum and Carson are pro-life. Meanwhile, no leftist has ever dared to make the claim that reversing Roe v. Wade will lead to the removal of the age of consent.
While on the topic let's Roe our boat over to the Supreme Court (Note: We here at Ephrom Report apologize for that pun) and see what Live Action has to say about that. Well, they currently have three articles up hoping whoever Trump picks to fill Kennedy's seat will reverse the most important case on abortion. While even trying to make people who are against that look like the bad guys.
Don't believe me? Well when, as they reported, "Senator Dianne Feinstein expressed fear that [Amy Coney] Barrett's Catholic faith would lead her to overturn Roe v. Wade" if Trump were to appoint her, Live Action responded with mockery. Saying "Applying a religious test to someone is, of course, unconstitutional" which is true, but so is overturning a court case because of your religious views.
Here's something I would like the readers at home to do. Imagine if, for instance, a Democrat were to appoint a Muslim justice who, due to his religion, was anti-first amendment. Do you think the response Live Action gave above would be even close to the reaction Republicans would give in my situation? Of course not.
But what do I know? I only have eyes, and the ability to understand when someone is being a hypocrite. However, if you think I'm just being bias I request you to go through the article you just read and see how many times I state my opinion on these issues.
Yes we have an official YouTube channel now. This will be used for our creators to make videos. The only show currently being produced for it is The Ephrom Josine Show but that will change in the future.
Link Here
Plus, since I would honestly feel bad if this is the entire post, I figured I would include a quick little mock of something from Dylan's twitter. So here's something I found last night:
A writer at The Guardian blamed Trump as the reason she stopped going to the gym, which resulted in her not being able to open jars anymore.
Okay, I'll give you that's pretty silly.
If a liberal can't open a jar, it's probably because they were turning it the wrong way - which is completely in line with how they think.
I like to think Dylan tries opening jars by turning them right for an hour or so. Once this fails he screams that this is all Obama's fault for inserting politics into everything.
Well, my country's national holiday is today. Yes, today is the 4th of July. Considering our Canadian correspondent J.P. Savard wrote a piece about Canada's national holiday, it's only natural I write one about mine.
So, in honor of our biggest national holiday, I figured I would honor our constitution. As an American, I know everyone's favorite part of the founding document is the second amendment of the Bill of Rights. Which goes as follows:
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
So it was then it hit me what the best way to celebrate my country is. I'm going to create "a well regulated Militia". It's very important that the Militia is well regulated. In fact, the Militia, unlike Banks, must be well regulated.
But why create one? Doesn't it seem like nothing more than trouble? Well no. You see, I've made a lot of calls to action with this blog. So I think it's time I officially make a group to enforce them. In fact, I can think of 5 reasons to create this new group:
1. Make sure all protectionists who talk about Roger & Me saw it less than 30 years ago. I know we won't need to start enforcing this until 12/20/19, but it's good to get this out of the way early.
2. Pressure Donald Trump to start fighting the Axis of Evil. This is only by request of John Bolton.
3. Scare Sean Hannity. Not for real reasons of course, that would clearly be too far. Just scare him for irrational reasons, such as saying that "We should improve America somewhat".
4. Get Dinesh D'Souza to understand what the Kinsey Scale is. I don't have any joke for this one, I just think it's a good idea.
5. Give people more quarters just in case a libertarian becomes president.
However, as already stated, the Militia must be well regulated. But don't worry, I took care of that. It's very well regulated. How well regulated? I gave it 15 regulations for people who want to be a member to follow. If you want to join, you must obey.
1. Humans are allowed by default. Fantasy creatures are also allowed, you all are cool. Aliens are allowed if you are from a planet, no star creatures. And no vampires, period. They scare me too much. Werewolves are allowed, except on nights that have a full move. They must leave and rejoin the next day.
2. You must have been born at some point in the past. No time travelers from the future are allowed.
3. You must be able to tell the difference between a pro-Trump Republican and an anti-Trump (Jeff Flake, Bill Kristol, or George W. Bush). Little and nothing are both fine, and correct, answers.
4. You must be able to name more Trump appointees then you can characters on "Full House" or "Fuller House". You are allowed to just not name any charters on either show.
5. You must own a TV. You don't ever have to watch it, you just have to own it to prove you keep in touch with the modern American.
6. You must read at least one article in The Daily Wire, Townhall.com, or Breitbart at least once a week to keep an eye on the enemy. For this reason you must also listen to at least one segment (or 10 minutes) of Hannity or The Ben Shapiro Show. You are allowed to just listen to people make fun of them instead.
7. You must admit music has never been "original", nor has Hollywood ever "had ideas". You just remember the best ones from your time, awful products existed in the same quantity they do now.
8. You must not only know how to tie a knot, but also be oddly proud of it. After all, that's how it works in the Boy Scouts and they are one of the most popular groups in United States history.
9. You must know at least one Billy Joel song. This has nothing to do with politics, I just really like Billy Joel.
10. You must not pretend that "all natural" or "organic" diets are in any way better for you. That has been long debunked.
11. You must be able to name at least one of Donald Trump's failed marriages. His current one is allowed.
12. You must only look at your phone when you're doing something on it. Using it while talking to other people is fine, but don't just look at the menu. Henry Kissinger is not going to text you.
13. If you wear Skinny Jeans or Jean Skirts you are on the same level of Werewolves. You must leave while wearing them and you will only be able to return once you have taken them off.
14. You must always have a lot of quarters with you. You never know when the roads are going to be privatized.
15. You must still believe in climate change while it's snowing.
So, if you can pass all these regulations, you may join my militia.
No. What do you mean that can't be the whole column? Okay fine, I'll humor this idea.
With the recent victory of Alexandra Ocasio Cortez against Joe Crowley, many think that socialism is taking over the Democratic party. I guess we're supposed to forget every Democrat since FDR was president has been accused of being a socialist because this time it is true. Roosevelt will abolish capitalism, I mean Truman will abolish capitalism, I mean Kennedy will abolish capitalism, I mean Johnson will abolish capitalism, I mean Carter will abolish capitalism, I mean Clinton will abolish capitalism, I mean Obama will abolish capitalism. And they all benefit from capitalism as well. It can't be they don't actually want to abolish capitalism, they're just hypocrites.
But again, let's pretend this isn't just people who take Joseph McCarthy a little too seriously and actually analyze these claims. Sure, Nancy Pelosi denied it, but she's Nancy Pelosi. She's only one of the highest-ranking Democrats. What does she know? Instead, we should trust noted smart man Charlie Kirk.
The Marxists have taken over the Democrat party
Again. These Marxists must be really bad at taking things over. I mean, they've been taking over the Democratic party for over 80 years and we still haven't had a single Democrat run on a Communist platform.
They do not want borders, immigration enforcement, or protection of American citizen status
Karl Mark: Anarchist. Although, it's funny because communist societies have been the most focused on borders. Just ask the East Germans about that one.
The Democrat party of old is dead
Tell that to Dinesh D'Souza.
These Democrats hate the idea of America, freedom, and our way of life
As opposed to the Democrats of before who *checks history* supported slavery.
We must defeat them
Wait to be civil.
But don't worry everyone, Sean Hannity managed to make a list of everything Cortez stands for. He did so good that Alexandria said she may use it in a campaign ad. Did I mention Sean was trying to make Alexandria look bad? But what exactly scared Hannity so much:
Medicare For All
You know that thing basically every other first world nation has. Most of them have far better healthcare systems by the way. Oh, and 45,000 die every year due to lack of basic healthcare.
Housing as a Human Right
There are more empty homes than homeless people. Oh, and the war on homeless people costs more than it would to give them a basic home. Even if the idea is kind of vague, you can't just shove the idea of "let's give people houses" under the rug like that.
Really, most of these are things that a lot of people can get behind. For god sake, "mobilizing against climate change" is one of them. As if remaining on the earth and keeping it inhabitable is something controversial.
You know what, it's clear the answer is no. So how about instead of wasting your time I just show you some funny reactions. You guys like that? Good.
David Brat went on Fox News to compare Cortez to the USSR. Which is odd because I never recall Cortez saying she wants to abolish profit or private property. I do recall Republicans saying she said that though.
Steve Schmidt, a former GOP strategist, said she was a "dishonest progressive". The MSNBC host even said, "it's time for the center to rise". Like what he did under Obama, and now Republicans control all 3 branches of government. Schmidt even compared her to Trump. Clearly, it's a losing political strategy when the president of the United States is doing it.
So, while socialism may not be taking over the Democrats, it's fun watching people pretend that it is. Like it has been for the past 8 decades.
