The Catholic Church, Pope Francis, and Matt Walsh

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

   

         

So . . . Let's Talk About Elizabeth Warren

Ever since the end of the 2016 election, many have thought that Senator Elizabeth Warren would be a potential front-runner for 2020. After all, after Bernie nearly won it only makes sense that the second most progressive Senator should give it a shot. Heck, after Hillary Clinton it seems like more women should give it a shot. 

This theory is also helped by her introducing a bill that would help regulate money in politics. If you remember, that was Bernie Sander's main campaign promise. Along with universal healthcare and college, both of which Warren also supports.

However, could Warren beat, not only Donnie but also the other Democrats? The answer is a giant maybe.

First off, in order for this to work, Bernie cannot run. Progressives prefer Bernie to Warren over 4 times over. This is mainly because, to her own fault, Warren backed Hillary over Bernie. This is something that just can't be ignored.

Here's another fact: In order for Warren to win, no conservative Democrats must run. Why is that? Because of the fact that conservative Democrats are still angry at Warren because she's part of the "Bernie wing" despite never backing Bernie. 

That's what makes Warren's run for president a particularly low shot. She's in that award place where, while she is far from a centrist, she cannot survive anyone other than her running for president.

Between the 4 most likely 2020 Democrats [Bernie Sanders, Joe Biden, Eric Holder, and Elizbeth Warren] Warren is clearly the longest shot. Mind you, that doesn't make her the worst candidate. In fact, her being president wouldn't be something I'm against. However, I'm just calling it as I see it.      

Obama Enviorment Regulations Caught Saving Too Many Lives

One of the things Donnie is the absolute worst at is maintaining the environment. I know, surprising to hear about a man who fired someone who sued to EPA a dozen times to replace him with a cole lobbyist. Of course, this is also the president that pulled out of the Paris Climate Agreement and called Climate Change a plot by China. So again, what do you expect?

However, until now most of the regulations Donald has gotten rid of at least made some sense. Or at least, you could pretend like they make sense. 

Here are some facts about what the new bunch of deregulations towards environmental laws will do:

-A release of at least 12 times the amount of CO2 compared to what could have been.

-More coal (substudies)! 

-A lot of people dying due to polluted air. Promise the media won't cover it by the way.

What's not to love? Also, the number of poor people who will need to go to the emergency room will cost the taxpayer millions. But all of that's fine because it gives people the freedom to destroy the planet they live on. These people . . .     

The Lefts Biggest Strength

It's official. Justice Democrats, a left-wing populist branch of the DNC, just won its 23rd primary this week. It's like our ideas are popular or something.

However, winning elections may not be the thing the left is best at. Or at least, it's nearly a tie with what could be a close second. Getting banned from Twitter.

Yeah, remember when a conservative (just insert any of them at this point) was banned for breaking the rules. Remember how all of these people were told that it's the fault of the censorship-happy liberals. Remember how even many liberals fell into this trap. Well, it turns out that was a lie as well. 

3 left-wing twitter accounts were banned over the last week. But let's be fair and see what they did:

CultofDusty: Banned for making fun of YouTube skeptics and anti-SJWs. Was also a very notable critic of both the president and his party.

ReaghanHunt: Made a joke about kicking a Trump supporter out of Applebees. 

Demotimvator: Made jokes against Republicans.

No bias here. Can't wait for the free speech loving skeptics to go after Twitter for censoring liberals. Don't hold your breath. Seriously, you could pass out waiting for them to apply standards consitintly.  

If Democrats Want To Win They Should Listen To People Who Actually Want To Help Them

I should start this column by making one thing very clear: I am a Democrat. I have been a Democrat my entire political life. I want Democrats to win elections, take back the government, and implement good ideas. Therefore listening to someone like me makes sense. I want to fix the party and have them win more than anything because if Democrats win I win.

However, as a loyal Democrat, I must say that I don't trust Republicans. That should be obvious, but Democrats don't seem to agree with me. Considering they seem to be scared of people like "socialist" Alexandra Ocasio Cortez or "comrade" Bernie Sanders. Despite the fact basically, no communists actually support Sanders or Cortez. 

Now allow me to give you a hypothetical. Imagine if I wrote in 2010 a column called "I Ain't Entirely Sure About This Tea Party Thing". After the 2010 midterms, when due to the Tea Party Republicans won 63 House seats and 6 Senate seats, I would have looked ridiculous. OR I would have done this on purpose because I don't want Republicans to win. 

This is why I think CBS published a column comparing Cortez to Sarah Palin. This was written by Micheal Graham. A radio host who is a self-described conservative. Who wants to bet he voted for Palin?

Look, maybe we shouldn't go towards the populist left wing. However, the person who tells us that shouldn't be a conservative. It should be us, fellow Democrats. I don't think that's too much to ask for.         

You Mean Donald Is Somewhat Of A Racist? Who Would Have Thought?

Yep, it's happened. Donald has officially crossed the one line that made it impossible to confirm what liberals have known since day one.

When former White House staffer Ornarose Manigault Newman released her new book, the world found something out. According to her during the filming of The Apprentice, he had used a certain racial slur. While I won't say it here, just know you can find it on the front page of The Daily Stormer.

Do I believe it? Yes. Of course I do. Here are 5 reasons as to why:

1. He's Donald Trump. Need I say more? 

2. The person who gave this source was a former White House who had no reason to lie. She's actively going against her non-disclosure agreement by publishing the book. You would think she would at least use it to tell the truth.

3. Candance Owens, savior of black conservatives, couldn't defend Donald. Instead, she decided to start complaining that someone dared to give out the information.

4. Not even Sarah Huckabee Sanders could deny it.

5. He's Donald Trump. Need I say more?

10 Things We Can't Afford While We Can Afford A Space Force

1. Give healthcare to the 45,000 people who die every year due to lack of basic healthcare.

2. Pay off the $1.5 trillion of student loan debt.

3. Continue funding Meals on Wheels.  

4. Continue funding welfare programs.

5. Not cut funding towards education.

6. Deal with the over half a million homeless people in our country.

7. Deal with the almost 40,000 veterans in this country.

8. Continue giving healthcare to poor people.

9. Continue giving healthcare to kids.

10. Pay off our $21 trillion national debt.

Huge Win For The Left: What The Media Isn't Telling You

So after the past week, the media has been obsessed with Alexandra Ocasio Cortez. And by that, I mean trying to destroy her. Their latest tactic is obvious, claim no one likes her anyway.

Because if no one likes her, why even care what she has to say? She's clearly wrong, that's why no one likes her. And no one likes her because she's wrong. Wait?

CNN, CNN, I'm sorry, I just really don't like CNN. Although they aren't alone. Many news outlets talked about how progressives lost this week, despite the fact they won bigger than ever.

Meanwhile, what they didn't tell you is that 5 Justice Democrats won primaries that same night. So if progressives are losing, we're doing a really bad job at it.

More InfoWars Hypocrisy

So Infowars was banned from YouTube, Spotify, Facebook, and Apple. Personally, I say good riddance. If you're against anti-discrimination laws then I don't have an issue with you not getting to benefit from these laws.

It's just like what I said after Twitter shadowbanned conservatives. Although, funnily enough, Twitter didn't ban Jones. If you don't want bakers to be forced to serve gay people cakes, no one should be forced to put you on my social media platform.

This is where the right responds that "These platforms have a monopoly", this is untrue. Competition exists for all these platforms, big names are just too lazy to use it. Don't like YouTube? Go on Dailymotion, Vimeo, Vidilli, Veoh, and so on. Don't like Twitter? Go on Gab or All4Truth. And these are all just off the top of my head.

The fact is these companies are following the first amendment. As they are not making any laws obstructing freedom of speech. They are only enforcing the rules they, as a private company, have set up.

Plus, this idea of a "digital Bill of Rights" which people like Paul Joseph Watson are endorsing is the dumbest idea of all time. You know what happens when companies are forced to advertise on things that hurt there image? They stop advertising on the internet and go back to Television. Basically, you're putting every internet service behind a paywall.

So what's the moral here? Follow the rules of the websites you use. It isn't hard.   

How Dare A Company Hire Someone Racist . . . Against White People

Well, it looks like The New York Times is in yet another controversy because of course it is. At this point them being in a controversy is my sign the sun will rise the next day. 

Okay, so what did they actually do? Well, The New York Times hired an Asian woman by the name of Sarah Jeong. After doing some digging, many found out she tweeted many things that were racist against white people.




 The last one is clearly a satire of the "white genocide" conspiracy theories. All 3 of these are clearly a joke. Also, she was hired to write about tech, not about race.

But even then, can we talk about the hypocrisy here? Just a few weeks ago conservatives were angry . . . people were angry about racists. Remember when Papa John said something racist and people were angry about boycotts.

But then I realized the difference. John was racist against black people, Jeong was racist against white people. It's honestly funny how many "colorblind" people seem to select their outrage towards what race is being targeted.

But the right is right on one thing. You can't say what Jeong said about any other race . . . without being defended by conservatives. 

If The Dems Want Us To Vote . . .

Going into 2020, one thing is very clear. The Democrats don't seem to want to win in 2020. I know it's only 2018 and the midterms haven't happened yet, but you should still be concerned.

Donald is already campaigning. Mind you, President protectionist makes his flags in China, but still.

This should be the easiest election to win in United States history. Yet, as the first round of presidential candidates shows up, it looks more and more like they're going to give the President a second term.

To be clear: I will endorse whoever the Democrats put up in 2020. Even Zeus The Guitar Lord, a one-off Spongebob charter, would be a better president than Donald Trump. However, that doesn't mean everyone will. Tons of people will be willing to reelect a failed president because the other person is bland. 

Let's see who they have:

Sanders is still more than likely going to run. Him being a Senator and releasing a new Anti-Trump book is already proof of that. This is also helped by the fact that he's the most popular politician in America.

However, he will still be 80 during his presidential inauguration. Over a full year of the average US lifespan. Even with a 70-something-year-old president, people will still be worried rather or not it's too old. Of course, many Bernie supporters would love to take years off their own lives to give Bernie more of his own, but we aren't even close to their yet. 

Biden is someone that this blog has already talked about. So I'll make it short. He's the old ranting man of the Democratic Party. He's also one of the blandest white men in all of US politics, and that's saying something.    

However, a new man has entered the race. Ladies and Gentlemen, I present you former Attorney General Eric Holder. The man who is "interested" in a presidential run.

Eric Holder is the man I named the term "Pulling a holder" after. Basically, it means that once a government official is out of office they will advocate for better ideas than the ones they pushed for in office. Specifically, due to how now advocating for the legalization of marijuana. Meanwhile, he allowed President Obama to keep it illegal on the federal level and pave the way for Jeff Sessions. 

Or how about how he let President Obama sit by and throw the book at Edward Snowden. Now he says Snowden "did a public service". But he refused to do anything when the entire Justice Department, that he ran, said otherwise. 

So, we're 3 candidates in and so far only 1 of them is any good. Although at least I can see Biden winning, Holder just seems too much like a standard establishment type to be like in a post-Trump world where you're supposed to at least pretend you're bucking the establishment. Biden at least has been around the block long enough to call his ties "experience". Holder has never held elected office and has only been appointed to positions. 

Basically, the number of times a would-be president would have already won looks like this so far:

Sanders: 20 (many of which he was a write-in for) even if he doesn't win reelection for his Senate seat in November.

Biden: 10

Holder: 0

This can only end so well. 

Maybe The Market Does Correct Itself: The Twitter Story

So it turns out Twitter has been shadowbanning conservatives. Not actually banning by the way, but making it slightly harder to see the tweets.

Honestly, I think this is a fair trade-off. This is the same year that conservatives defended the right of a business owner to not serve gay people.

"But Ephrom, don't you think business owners should be forced to serve gay people products?" I hear you ask. To which the answer is yes, but there is a notable difference. 

I think we have all figured out, at this point, that gay people don't choose to be gay. Yet, conservatives choose what political views they have. The fact is, Twitter is simply applying their TOS, I have no issue with that. It is no different than a conservative website not allowing me to post comments that support single payer. 

So which way is it conservatives? Can a business be forced to serve people they don't like, or should they be required to accept all customers? Maybe it's just these people are homophobic, but who knows.