Cruzin' (The Ephrom Josine Show Ep. 154)

2018 Roundup

Well, 2018 has come to an end. And with the government shutdown, Democrats taking the House, and much more, I say this year has been . . . something.

The government shutdown has been going on for 10 days. Luckily, Donald's government shutdown is so unpopular, he has to blame everyone but himself. A recent poll found that only half of all Americans surveyed blamed the man who was given a spending bill that could have stopped the shutdown and didn't sign it. Or, only half of all Americans blamed the person who caused the shutdown.

Of course, the shutdown was over Donald Trump wanting taxpayers to fund his wall. I would give Trump credit for following through on his campaign promises if he didn't also promise us that Mexico would pay for the wall. What happened to that? Oh, and if the promise wasn't really stupid. 

Going into 2020, things are only getting worse for Democrats. Elizebeth Warren announced her run unofficially today. I think she would be a positive influence on the race, even if she's only one-half correct that's still better than who else I'm seeing.

CNN did a segment today on how Bernie can't win because he's an old white man. Despite the fact that our current president is an old white man (the spray tan makes it hard to tell, I know). They also tried to call him a pervert, although when he's running against the grouper in chief, I don't really think that matters all that much. 

Seriously though, let's just all take a minute and be happy Beto O'Rourke won't be president. All the polls seem to say it will either be Joe Biden or Bernie Sanders. I like Biden, I think he was a very good Vice President under Obama and a pretty decent Senator, even if he came in just at the time when Democrats couldn't figure out how they should feel about race. Rather either of them will run is still up in the air, but important news is where the polls line up.

Of course, CNN is trying to make Kamla Harris 2020 a thing. It's not going to be a thing, but CNN really doesn't seem to care. They've put her as there most likely to be the nomination for two months in a row, despite no poll done by anyone that isn't CNN saying this. 

Of course, the only candidate who has has a snowball's chance in hell is Richard Ojeda. He's a good center-left candidate, but he's not bad. He believes in healthcare for all, universal education, and increased taxes on the rich.

So what will happen in 2019? Let's find out together.

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.         

Is The Democratic Party Being Taken Over By Socialist?

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. 

  

    

       

Reminder: Peace Is A Good Thing

Before we begin I would like to make one thing clear, I'm not a fan of Trump, at all. Heck, any article I've written involving him on this site can tell you that. Yet, I feel like I'm forced to defend him in this case from the people who claim to be on the left, but have turned into the left's Dick Cheney in order to oppose him.
Mind you, I'm not saying the President is a saint here. After all, he's the one who made John Bolton the national security adviser. This is the same John Bolton who has made it clear he STILL supports the Iraq War. He also tried to sabotage the peace talk with North Korea, so again, it's not like the White House is perfect. Donald can't get my full support on foreign policy until he fires Bolton, stops bombing at least some of the 8 countries, at least somewhat downsizes the military industrial complex, and restores the Iran Deal. And that's ignoring the well over 100 ways I oppose in on other issues.
Maybe Kim Kardashian can get him to do this. (2018 politics are weird) 
For that matter, I'm not ignoring the hypocrisy of many on the right supporting this. When Obama talked about meeting with the exact same country during his campaign, Fox News was angry. Now Fox got former House Speaker Newt Gingrich to explain why doing this is great.   
However, as the old phrase goes, just because everyone else is bad, doesn't mean it's okay for you to be. And honestly, I'm having trouble telling the difference between a lot of the "left-wing" political commentators who are against this, and old speeches from Donald Rumsfeld during the War in Iraq. Just look at this comic, published in a left-wing news outlet, as an example: 

Mr.President, why aren't you fighting the axis of evil?-What this comic is saying

Seriously, this looks like something National Review would have ran back in '04. Just replace Trump with John Kerry and Un with Saddam. 
But it only gets worse. Top cable "news" host Rachel Maddow decided to steal Glenn Beck's old bit of being completely insane and tried to find alternative reasons as to why Trump is doing this. I'll sum up for segment in a few short sentences for you:

Donald Trump is trying to make peace with North Korea. North Korea has a boarder with Russia. Therefore, the president is working for Russia when he did this.

 Yeah, Maddow talks about Russia quite a bit. Also, her theory doesn't make any sense, at all. By that logic, Trump already made peace with North Korea because we're still allies with South Korea. 
Also, did Rachel ignore the fact that the two countries that broader ours, Canada and Mexico, are ones Donald has been a huge critic of. 
Also, that segment went on for about three minutes and I was able to sum it up in three sentences. But here are a few more things that are brought up, but aren't the focus:
-Rachel puts odd focus on how the only way you can get from North Korea to Russia is a train. I don't know why this bothers me so much. Although, it's probably for the same reason Maddow focused on it for so long.
-Maddow is angry Trump is talking to a dictator. That is literally a right-wing talking point from when Obama met with Iran. 
-At one point she says the summit was in North Korea. It was actually in Singapore.
-She goes on and on about how we're "normalizing dictators" by meeting with North Korea. When I thought we did that when we started backing 73% of the world's dictators. Hey Rachel, how many segments have you made on that? After all, you seem to be worried about us supporting these two, imagine how angry you should be hearing we support many more. 
-Maddow is also FURIOUS that we didn't make any demands for North Korea to follow. You know, besides not starting a war.  
But even then, let's say Maddow is right and this is all a plot by Russia to do, something. I don't know what, but something. How does that make what Trump is doing bad? If Putin really wants peace between not only the 60 year long enemies of North Korea and the United States, but also the even longer discontent between North and South Korea that has gone on since the Cold War, than Putin sounds like an awesome guy. 
But sad MSNBC hosts aren't the only ones who are angry at peace. Senate Democrats have wrote a letter making it clear that they will not support an Iran style deal unless they have these following 5 points:

1.The deal must include the dismantlement and removal of all nuclear, chemical, and biological weapons from North Korea

Okay, that's perfectly fair. 

2.The U.S. must ensure a "complete and verifiable denuclearize of North Korea" removing all items related to nuclear-weapons productions to prevent the country from reversing course.

Again, I guess that's fine. After all, you can't have a deal unless both sides are following it.

3.North Korea must end its ballistic-missile programs as well.

Wait, why? All the weapons listed before are considered WMD's and banned under the Geneva Convention (with the US never singed onto, but still). But Ballistic missiles seem to be a little far.
Doing that would just make them sitting ducks in case South Korea ever wants to topple them. They understand MAP, that's how they survived for so long. 

4.North Korea must comply with "anywhere, anything" inspections to ensure it is not cheating on the deal, and sanctions must be immediately restored if it does cheat.

Again, I guess that's fine.

5.The deal must be permanent.  

 So, wait a minute. What if they're actually being attacked by someone? Then can they get there missiles back or are they just forced to fight with less?
This is what I mean, the "left" wants to sabotage peace in order to harm Donald Trump, and it's honestly disgusting to me. I hear, and have even used, the phrase "wrong side of history" before. Tell me, how often are you on that side when you support war? 

  

  

     

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

-Benjamin Franklin

-John Hancock

-Thomas Jefferson

-James Madison

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

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

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

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

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

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

 The Republican promise is for … less regulations-Rand Paul 

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

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

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

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

Employee:Anything else?

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

Let’s say you say yes

Employee:Sure

Customer:Okay great

Now let’s say you say no

Employee: No

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

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

 

So I Guess Democrats Are Racist, Or Something

So, let's talk about this week. It seems like the Republican party has been spending this entire week making false comparisons with there political enemies. Don't get me wrong, this isn't a new tactic (see Dennis Prager comparing a pedophile preacher to the morally questionable founder of Playboy). It just seems like this is the week all the stars aligned and they decided to find as many reasons to do this as possible. 
Combined with this and the MANY other tactics they use in order to lie, and you get something truly special. Quite possibly the most recent, and yet longest ongoing example, is the idea that the Democratic Party is racist. 
Yeah, this is one that's been going on for a while. It seems that over the past few weeks, Turning Point USA director Candace Owens has been going crazy explaining how Democrats are racist.  

 The next time @RepMaxineWaters @CoryBooker Jesse Jackson, Al Sharpton open their mouths to tell us why blacks should align with the Democrats, close your eyes with me and visual: [Shows a picture of Stephen from Django Unchained]

It seems like Candace forgot that liberals are supposed to be the ones always complaining about racism with no proof, as she just accessed 4 people of being racist with no proof. For that matter, I thought liberals who always insulted minorities who didn't agree with them, odd that's exactly what Candace is doing.  
This isn't the only she's done this by the way. Recently, she even went on Prager "U" in order to explain why "playing the black card" angers her so much. This is odd though considering she used to literally go under the name Red Pill Black and aimed to create a channel that would "promote conservativism to a black audience".
Mind you, she doesn't really make any case as to why the Democratic Party is racist in this video, but that may be because Prager has so many other videos on that topic. 
For instance, Carol Swain has made two videos on this topic. One for both the Democratic and Republican party. Of course, very little of it makes any sense:

The Democratic Party defended slavery, started the Civil War, opposed Reconstruction, founded the Ku Klux Klan, imposed segregation, perpetrated lynchings, and fought against the civil rights acts of the 1950s and 1960s.

Interesting, now let's look at what Dennis (since he does hire all these people) has to say about how the left views slavery:

The Left’s view is that America was founded by rich white males who were intent on protecting their race, their wealth, and in many cases, their slaves.

So Dennis's view is that the Democratic Party was founded by rich white males who were intent on protecting their race, their wealth, and in many cases, their slaves. But hypocrisy is a virtue so I guess it doesn't matter. 
Here's some of her commentary on the civil rights act:

Eighty percent of Republicans in Congress supported the [Civil Rights Act of 1964]. Less than 70 percent of Democrats did. Democratic senators filibustered the bill for 75 days, until Republicans mustered the few extra votes needed to break the logjam.

Funny how she ignores one of the most important critics of the bill from within the Republican party. Barry Goldwater, who was the Republican nominee in the '64 presidential election, was against the act.
Here's a statement Carol makes that is just weird:

[E]very black representative in the House until 1935 was a Republican. And every black senator until 1979 was, too.

Funny she mentioned the Senate because out of the 3 African American Senators, 1 is black. As for the House, there are 2 incumbent representatives that are both African American and Republican, compared to 41 that are Democrats. If pure numbers mean anything, then it's odd you even brought this up in the first place. 
But okay, let's see the proof Carol has that the Democrats are racist now after all the founders were racist and it would be a virtue to say they're not bad but the Democrats are:

Massive government welfare has decimated the black family. Opposition to school choice has kept them trapped in failing schools.  Politically correct policing has left black neighborhoods defenseless against violent crime.

May I ask how it's not the "bigotry of soft expectations" to say that black people are just going to go on welfare? Also, I thought the left just called everyone they don't like racist, now if you're against school vouchers you're racist. And may I ask how political correctness of all things has caused any impact on violent crimes. 
So to review, Democrats are bad because they were racist a long time ago and America is good even though it was racist a long time ago. I think these people think this makes sense, and like always, they are wrong.