Thursday, April 27, 2017
Wednesday, April 26, 2017
Tuesday, April 25, 2017
Monday, April 24, 2017
Sunday, April 23, 2017
Saturday, April 22, 2017
Friday, April 21, 2017
Thursday, April 20, 2017
Wednesday, April 19, 2017
Tuesday, April 18, 2017
Monday, April 17, 2017
Sunday, April 16, 2017
Saturday, April 15, 2017
Friday, April 14, 2017
Thursday, April 13, 2017
Wednesday, April 12, 2017
Tuesday, April 11, 2017
Monday, April 10, 2017
Sunday, April 9, 2017
Saturday, April 8, 2017
Friday, April 7, 2017
Thursday, April 6, 2017
Wednesday, April 5, 2017
Tuesday, April 4, 2017
Monday, April 3, 2017
Sunday, April 2, 2017
This is what political persecution looks like. This, right here. Look no further. David Daleiden, Sandra Merritt, and the Center For Medical Progress are now facing 15 felony charges for committing the crime of exposing Planned Parenthood’s crimes.
As you may recall, the Center For Medical Progress released a series of videos in 2015 exposing Planned Parenthood’s baby trafficking operation. Hours and hours of undercover footage captured various high ranking Planned Parenthood officials as they confessed to selling the severed limbs and disemboweled organs of dead children, and on several occasions it showed them actually in the act of negotiating over fees. In one particularly ghoulish episode, an abortionist worried that she was getting “low balled” on the price of a murdered child’s body part, exclaiming, “I want a Lamborghini!”
The post This is what persecution looks like. All decent Americans should be infuriated. appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Saturday, April 1, 2017
Outspoken liberal George Takei — he of the original “Star Trek” cast — isn’t shy about sharing his left-wing views on social media.
Not surprisingly, Takei took to Twitter on Friday to join what’s become the popular mockery talking point of the week — making fun of Republican Vice President Mike Pence for his marriage stance of not eating meals alone with other women.
The post Dana Loesch leaves George Takei in warp-drive dust after he mocks Pence’s marriage stance appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Friday, March 31, 2017
This week I published my book, The Unholy Trinity. The first few lines of the book — particularly the first sentence — have already sparked a fair amount of reaction:
The first liberal was named Lucifer. He was an angel. He lived in Heaven millennia ago, before modern times, before ancient times, before time itself. He could still be there today if that’s what he’d chosen, but in his absurd and insatiable pride he would not bend his knee to the supreme will of God.
Non serviam. “I will not serve,” he said, wanting to love only himself.
The post Christians, Our True Battle Is Spiritual, Not Political appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Thursday, March 30, 2017
In case you didn’t hear, there was some serious breaking news yesterday: It turns out that Vice President Pence and his wife are in a healthy, normal marriage, and they love each other very much. It was revealed in an interview with Karen Pence that she and her husband have established some basic boundaries, which include a policy where neither will go out to eat alone with a member of the opposite sex (family excluded, I presume). This is the part that has gotten a lot of attention in the news and on social media.
Now, you might say that it is, actually, a somewhat Earth-shattering revelation these days that two people, especially politicians, are in a respectful and committed relationship. Maybe we really ought to be putting this on the front pages. Maybe every 25 or 35 year anniversary should be celebrated with fireworks and a parade down main street. What was normal 50 years ago is now something close to an aberration. In that sense, all of the attention is warranted. But any rational and decent person, if they are inclined to pay attention to this kind of story at all, would pay it positive attention. They would see it as a nice and encouraging thing. They would say, “Wow, the Pences sure to do love and respect each other. Isn’t that wonderful!”
Unfortunately, there is a large population of abnormal and indecent people in our country, so the story provoked the opposite sort of reaction. The media wrote marveling, condescending headlines about the “strict rules” adopted by the puritanical Pences, while a herd of cackling hyenas on Twitter spent all of last evening mocking Mike and Karen Pence and anyone else who may agree with their prudent approach to marriage.
The post Matt Walsh: Newsflash to those attacking Mike Pence — all healthy marriages have boundaries appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Wednesday, March 29, 2017
Tuesday, March 28, 2017
This is the official launch day for my book, The Unholy Trinity. I’d like to say I’m excited about it — I mean, I am excited — but I also feel a mixture of more stressful emotions, which I’m told are pretty common for authors. I think that sentence, by the way, is the first time I’ve called myself an author. That will take some getting used to.
I don’t know if the book will sell. I doubt it will get good reviews, if it gets reviewed at all. I’m sure these aren’t the things my publisher wants me to say about it, but I always try to be real with you guys and that’s not going to change now. The book goes after all of the Left’s sacred cows — abortion, the gay lobby, “transgenderism,” feminism — and that’s not going to win it many fans. I knew that going in, and I’m OK with it.
I didn’t write the book in order to have a bestseller. I wrote it simply because I felt that it needed to be written, and for no other reason. I truly believe that the battle for our culture really boils down to the fight over life, marriage, and gender. The Left’s largely successful campaign to redefine these three essential pillars of human civilization is the most important thing happening in our country right now, culturally speaking. These fights are linked, they feed off of each other, and we, as Christians and conservatives, essentially surrender everything to the Left when we abandon any one of these battlefields.
That’s the argument I’ve been making for years, it’s the argument I make in the book, and it’s the argument that a great many people on my “side” have consistently rejected. If this book can manage to smack some sense into even a few of those people, I’ll consider it a success. And I should be clear that this book is a smack, not a tickle or a whisper. Many people on my “side” need to be smacked awake, metaphorically speaking.
This book is not an academic dissertation. I’ll be the first to tell you that I’m not a scholar or a philosopher. I don’t even have a college degree. In high school, when I still thought I might go to college, I was informed that I didn’t have the chops to get a degree in creative writing. Maybe that was true. Maybe it still is. But now I write for a living and I just published a book, so what can I say? God has plans for us that sometimes seem to defy logic or explanation. And I fully admit that giving such a platform and such a large audience to some random dude like myself certainly falls under the “defies logic” umbrella.
I’m not sure if I’ve done a good job of promoting the book here. My apologies to the publisher if I’m doing this wrong. I just wanted to share a few thoughts with you guys as I get ready for a hectic week. And whether you buy the book or not, I want to sincerely thank you for your loyal support. I am completely unworthy and undeserving of your respect and attention, but I am grateful for it — if sometimes a bit perplexed by it.
Monday, March 27, 2017
This is an absolutely horrific and infuriating story that hasn’t gotten nearly the attention it deserves. A 14-year-old Maryland girl at Rockville High School was allegedly forced into the bathroom and raped by two illegal aliens. One of the illegals is 18 years old. I repeat: this is an 18-year-old illegal immigrant who was enrolled as a FRESHMAN in a high school in Maryland. And to make the whole story all the more outrageous, only a few days after this incident, Maryland Democrats voted to make the state a “sanctuary” for illegals. A kid was just brutally raped by an 18-year-old Guatemalan citizen in one of their schools, and this is how they respond. Maniacs. All of them.
Once again, Leftist policies display such abounding “compassion” for politically useful groups yet have none for our citizens, especially our kids. The compassion of Leftism always seems oddly calculated and convenient, pouring out for illegal immigrant rapists while overlooking innocent victims who have a right to be protected from this kind of madness. It should go without saying, but our kids shouldn’t have to worry about the rapist element from Guatemala. It’s our government’s job to keep those sorts of people out. And to do so is where true compassion lies.
The post Leftists, Why Not Have a Little Compassion for Your Fellow Citizens for a Change? appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Saturday, March 25, 2017
Friday, March 24, 2017
Thursday, March 23, 2017
Wednesday, March 22, 2017
Tuesday, March 21, 2017
Tomi Lahren and I work for the same company. I’ve been on her show a few times and I always enjoyed the conversation. I don’t really know her because I work from home up in Maryland and she’s down at headquarters in Dallas, but she seems like a nice person and I have no qualms with her personally at all.
I can’t and won’t speculate as to why she went on The View this past Friday, suddenly reversed course on abortion, declared herself to be “pro-choice,” and basked in the patronizing applause from the liberal audience and the radical feminists at the table. All I know is that just a few months ago she was describing abortion as the “murder” of “babies,” but when given the spotlight on a mainstream network, she eagerly rattled off a series of inane, half-baked Planned Parenthood talking points, while Joy Behar nodded approvingly. Here’s what she said exactly:
“I’m pro-choice and here is why. I am a constitutional, you know, someone that loves the Constitution. I am someone that is for limited government, so I can’t sit here and be a hypocrite and say I’m for limited government but I think the government should decide what women do with their bodies. Stay out of my guns, and you can stay out of my body as well… And you know, I get a lot of attacks from conservative women as well. Equal hate from all sides for me.”
Tomi, who has repeatedly blasted liberals for believing that the unborn have no rights, has now decided that actually the unborn really don’t have any rights, and anyone who believes otherwise (anyone who believes as she professed to believe about 14 seconds ago) is a hypocrite and a hater. Again, I can’t explain this dramatic and troubling change of heart. As is always the case with these kinds of mysterious flip-flops, two theories emerge:
The cynical theory is that Tomi says whatever will earn applause in front of whatever audience she happens to be addressing in the moment. She was “pro-life” in her Facebook videos and Twitter posts because it was sure to garner retweets and shares, and she was “pro-choice” on The View because it was sure to please the crowd in attendance and attract favorable coverage from outlets like Cosmopolitan.
The slightly less cynical interpretation is that Tomi really changed her mind for some reason, and decided to have her pro-abortion coming out party on The View, of all places. But even if she did change her mind, the fact that she threw pro-lifers under the bus is extremely disappointing. And the fact that she followed up this betrayal by playing the victim on Twitter, again mocking pro-lifers as “the conservative police,” and explaining that she’s a “moderate conservative,” as if we were all supposed to have known that based on her videos where she constantly criticizes moderate conservatives for being moderate, is equally as disappointing.
It’s also profoundly damaging and counter productive for a self-appointed spokeswoman of conservatism to publicly turn against the most fundamental tenet of conservatism, and in the process denigrate the conservatives who still believe in that tenet. If she’s had a sincere pro-abortion conversion experience, she has a responsibility to the audience that made her famous to explain it to them directly and respectfully, not to announce it to the hens on The View while insulting the audience that put her there. On the other hand, if the conversion was not sincere, or if she was pro-abortion all along and only regurgitated pro-life slogans to manipulate her conservative audience, then that scene on The View was something considerably worse than merely disappointing.
I can’t guess as to which of these explanations applies, and I won’t try, but a lot of people will guess and they can’t be blamed for guessing. When you reverse course so drastically, refuse to offer an explanation, and then act with contempt towards the people who are asking for one, you invite them to come up with their own. That’s just the way these things go. Rather than participate in the conjecture, I reached out to Tomi personally and offered to come on her show to have a dialogue. I think it’s fair to say that I’m the most vocal pro-lifer here at TheBlaze, and Tomi, as far as I know, is the only pro-choicer, so it seems that a debate between the two of us could be constructive.
Now, all of that aside, what matters most about Tomi’s pro-abortion comments is that they’re just plain wrong. It’s the wrongness I want to focus on, primarily. I will launch no personal attacks against her. I would much rather discuss the wrongness of her ideas, and there’s quite a lot of wrongness to sort through:
She’s wrong, first of all, because there is absolutely nothing in the Constitution granting a woman the right to murder her child. There are, however, several amendments which affirm the right of all humans to be treated as human.
She’s wrong, second, because this has nothing to do with what a woman does with her body. This has to do with what a woman does with the body of her child. While the body of a child may be dependent on the body of its mother, that doesn’t make the child’s body the same as the mother’s body. In a similar way, a newborn baby may be dependent on his mother’s breast for sustenance, but that doesn’t mean he is his mother’s breast. I think science backs me up on this.
She’s wrong, third, because rights do not negate responsibilities. Indeed, rights and responsibilities are dimensions of each other. Every right has a corresponding responsibility. For instance, you have the right to bear arms, but you lose that right if you use your gun to murder another person. With the right to bear arms comes the responsibility to do so in a way that will not result in the death of an innocent human. Likewise, a woman has the right to mostly “do what she wants with her body,” but not if “doing what she wants” means killing a baby. I basically have the right to drive where I want, but I don’t have the right to drive into my neighbor’s living room. I usually have the right to walk where I want, but I don’t have the right to walk on my neighbor’s head. I often have the right to say what I want, but I don’t have the right to call the police and falsely accuse my neighbor of cooking meth in his basement. In all of these cases, there is a built in understanding that I can “do what I want,” so long as “what I want” doesn’t include causing direct and intentional harm to an innocent party.
Speaking of responsibility, as I explain in my forthcoming book, parents have a special responsibility to their children. When you have kids, the list of things you can do dwindles while the list of things you must do expands significantly. This is what it means to be an adult. I am legally required to care for my children, even if caring for them represents an enormous strain on my body, bank account, nerves, time, energy, etc. If we cannot or will not fulfill this responsibility, we’re legally obliged to make other arrangements for the child. What we can’t do, after they’re born, is violently exterminate them because we suddenly decided that we’d prefer to be “autonomous” again. If the law prohibits such an atrocity after birth, it ought to prohibit it before. And if such a law after birth is not an infringement on the rights of the parents, then it cannot logically be considered an infringement before.
She’s wrong, fourth, because the real “hypocrites” are the so-called “conservatives” who believe that a child’s right to life is subordinate to a woman’s right to convenience. In fact, these “conservatives” are hypocrites in about 15 different ways. Allow me to list them:
You’d think by now people would know to never believe a single word the Left says about Trump (or about anything) without first verifying. It doesn’t matter what the story is. If they tell you Trump ate pancakes for breakfast, you should just assume he had waffles until evidence proves otherwise. That’s how blatant and pervasive the lying has become.
We were treated to another example of this yesterday when the President released his budget. Immediately, the Left went into Apocalyptic Outrage Mode because it cuts a number of programs, agencies, and commissions that mostly exist just to provide paychecks to useless bureaucrats. It also slashes funding to “the arts” and PBS, which provoked a lot of weeping and wailing about the impending unemployment crisis on Sesame Street. Even on this issue, as unimportant as it is, the Left is lying. Sesame Street is on HBO now. So if you’re really concerned about the continued employment of Big Bird, you need not worry. As for cutting “arts” funding, I think I speak for the average American when I yawn dismissively, roll my eyes, and proceed to not care in the slightest.
All of this pales in comparison, however, to the outrage over the fact that Trump is planning to “end Meals on Wheels,” thus directly causing the death and starvation of our nation’s senior citizens. Social media exploded, and is still exploding, with millions of tweets and lengthy Facebook diatribes castigating Trump and the evil Republicans for defunding the program. Dozens of articles were written with headlines like “Trump Just Announced Plan to End ‘Meals on Wheels’ for Seniors,” which, if you didn’t know any better, would make you think Trump just announced a plan to end Meals on Wheels for seniors.
The only problem with all of this is that it’s total nonsense. Trump did not end Meals on Wheels. He didn’t do anything close to ending Meals on Wheels. His budget doesn’t mention Meals on Wheels. Instead, his budget cuts a program called the Community Development Block Grant. This program, which is often abused, partially funds Meals on Wheels. But the funds it gets from the CDBG are small in comparison to the funds it gets from sources like the Older Americans Act, which remains unscathed by Trump’s budget. Meals on Wheels also subsists largely on private donations. So, it’s not close to accurate to say that Meals on Wheels is “ended.” It’s not even accurate to say that government funding of Meals on Wheels is ended. Rather, one single source of government funding to the program is ended, while may other sources, including private ones, will continue.
Yet even as the real story surfaces —a story anyone could have figured out for themselves simply by reading the budget proposal — the Left continues to wring its hands and shake its finger at conservatives who have so far refused to weep openly about a partial cut to a charitable program that’s only partially funded by the government. As is always the case when the subject of entitlements arises, suddenly the godless Left has decided that the government must follow a Biblical mandate to help the poor, and anyone who disagrees with them is a “bad Christian.” Just imagine how they’d react if Trump actually cut entitlement spending, instead of just trimming around the edges like this.
Twitter has been full of Leftists insisting that Jesus would support funding for Meals on Wheels, therefore we Christians have a duty to oppose Trump’s plan. I have been personally lectured dozens of times over the past 24 hours about my lack of Christian charity and my refusal to abide by Biblical teachings on this subject. It’s fascinating that the very people who normally dismiss the Bible as a book of primitive fairy tales will suddenly appeal to its authority on an issue like entitlement spending (or refugees or immigration).
There are two problems with the Left using the Bible as a cudgel on this issue. First of all, Jesus does not endorse nor command that we support the notion of a massive, out of control Welfare State. When He speaks of helping the poor — and He does speak of it often — notice how the exhortations are phrased. Here are just a few examples:
“Give to the one who begs from you, and do not refuse the one who would borrow from you.” – Matthew 5:42
“For I was hungry and you gave me food, I was thirsty and you gave me drink, I was a stranger and you welcomed me, I was naked and you clothed me, I was sick and you visited me, I was in prison and you came to me.” – Matthew 25:35
“And the King will answer them, ‘Truly, I say to you, as you did it to one of the least of these my brothers, you did it to me.” – Matthew 25:40
“Sell your possessions, and give to the needy. Provide yourselves with moneybags that do not grow old, with a treasure in the heavens that does not fail, where no thief approaches and no moth destroys. For where your treasure is, there will your heart be also.” – Luke 12:33
Take note of two words that keep appearing. Namely, “you” and “give.” You need to give. You. Personally. Physically. Of your own free will and volition. Christ is not outlining a budget proposal or advocating for a certain form of government. He did not say, “I was hungry and you lobbied your political representative to write a piece of legislation that will appropriate money from your neighbor and, after a portion of it is siphoned off for other purposes, and much of it is wasted on fraud and abuse, a certain small percentage was used to fund programs that would eventually give me food.” The New Testament would be, like, 600 pages longer if this is how Christ approached things. Luckily, He was far more direct.
What He actually said was simple: “I was hungry and you gave me food.” As in, you saw a hungry person and right there on the spot gave him food. Or, knowing that there are a lot of hungry people in your community, you, through your own efforts, took your own money and gave it to charities that help the poor in your neighborhood. That is what the Bible tells us to do. And do it we must.
The post You Don’t Get to Lecture about ‘Christian Values’ While You Support Killing Babies appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
In his latest podcast, Matt Walsh came to the defense of American culture, defying the liberal campaign to glorify foreign cultures and denigrate our own:
We’re supposed to believe that all cultures and countries are equal. I say “we” are supposed to believe that because this is an idea that only western nations are apparently required to adopt. White liberals in this country wouldn’t dare criticize a Nigerian who believes Nigerian culture to be preferable and even superior to any other, or a Pakistani who believes the same about his own, and so on. Those people are allowed to, first of all, have a national and cultural identity, and second, put forward that identity as something worth protecting and sustaining. Only majority-white western nations are somehow disqualified from viewing themselves this way. Here, we are supposed to accept and celebrate all cultures and pretend that all people of all cultures are a fine fit in our own.
This is all nonsense, of course. Not all cultures are equal. Cultures where, for instance, it’s legal to stone women to death and execute infidels, and where all human advancement and achievement have been ground to a halt by backwards, primitive belief systems, are not equal to ours and do not gel with ours. This means that we should in fact be careful about allowing immigration from these kinds of places.
The post Reject the Left’s Theory That All Cultures Are Created Equal appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
A new study has been released showing that a majority of Americans are in favor of female pastors and priests. Of course, this isn’t at all surprising. It’s been a while since Scripture has enjoyed popular support in this country. There are probably more Americans studying “50 Shades of Grey” every night than the Bible, so you can’t really expect the mass of people to have a biblically literate view of things.
Still, the topic is worth a little attention because, breaking the numbers down, it’s revealed that over 70 percent of mainline Protestants support female pastors, while 80 percent of Catholics feel the same way. A full 62 percent of those who identify themselves as “practicing Christians” are on board with ignoring clear Biblical teaching on this topic (and many other topics). Only Evangelicals are, as a majority, in favor of sticking with the precedent set by Jesus and Paul and Adam and the prophets and the Church Fathers. But even in their case, it’s not a very large majority.
And why have all of these “practicing Christians” come down on this side of the question? They certainly didn’t arrive at it from consulting the Bible or thousands of years of Christian tradition, both of which are unmistakably clear. Let’s do a quick review:
Going back all the way to the beginning, Adam was formed before Eve. He was given dominion over the plants and animals. He was entrusted with this authority before Eve came onto the scene. She was created as Adam’s “helpmate,” to be his aide and his companion, not his spiritual teacher or authority figure. Much later, in his letter to Timothy, Paul uses this as one of the justifications for disqualifying women from pastoral positions. He explained that the Church adheres to the order of creation, which has put man at the head from the start.
Passing all the way through the Old Testament we find not a single instance where a woman was in a position of teaching or instructing a group of men in God’s Word. And did Christ overturn this order when He came to Earth? No, He followed it. All 12 of His apostles were men. This, in spite of the fact that some of his most loyal and faithful followers were women. And let’s not forget the seemingly related detail that He, Himself, is a man. He didn’t just take on the appearance of a man, like some alien shapeshifter assuming an Earthly form. He was fully man and fully God. This is relevant for obvious reasons.
Recall that the word “pastor” is from the Latin for shepherd. Christ refers to Himself repeatedly as the Shepherd, meaning that He was the first and ultimate pastor; the pastor at the head of all pastors. So we have the first Shepherd, a man, selecting shepherds, all men, to lead His church in His place after He ascends to Heaven. Those shepherds then delegated that authority to other men. Paul addressed the issue specifically, stating multiple times, particularly in First Timothy and First Corinthians, that women are not to be the leaders of churches.
The post Our Modern Opinions Are Irrelevant. God’s Word Is Not up for a Vote. appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Monday, March 20, 2017
Sunday, March 19, 2017
Saturday, March 18, 2017
Friday, March 17, 2017
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Wednesday, March 15, 2017
Tuesday, March 14, 2017
Monday, March 13, 2017
In writing about the “Day Without A Woman” protest earlier, I hit on a particular theme that sparked a fair amount of blow back, even from self-professed longtime readers. I said that the husbands of these left-wing feminist women, who decided to abandon their professional and family duties for the day in order to make some vaguely defined political statement, need to show some leadership in their households. Rather than submissively cooperating with his wife’s decision to put her feminism ahead of her family, a man should offer some guidance. I think I really upset people the most when I used the phrases “be a man” and “put your foot down.”
Now, if I had said that women should “put their foot down” in opposing the destructive and counter productive behavior of their husbands (which they should, of course), nobody would be offended. You’re allowed to encourage firm leadership on the part of women, but if you do so for men, using the exact same language, the very people who before shouted “amen” will now accuse you of being a backwards, misogynistic relic of the Stone Age. That’s because the people who oppose the idea of male leadership in the home don’t oppose it on egalitarian grounds, despite what they may claim. They don’t actually think that the husband and wife should both be leaders equally. They believe, rather, that the wife should be the leader.
It seems everyone agrees, in the end, that one or the other in the marriage must “take the lead,” in some sense. A plane can have a captain and a co-pilot, but it can’t have two co-pilots and no captain. Someone has to determine the course. There has to be some set ideas about who does what and why. Everyone can’t do everything. You can’t have a football team where everyone plays running back and nobody is QB. People with modern ideas about marriage know this, which is why they’ve assigned a captain, a QB, a course-setter: the woman.
Well, we’ve had several decades now of female-led homes; homes where either the man is physically absent, forcing the woman to play both roles, or where the man is spiritually and emotionally absent, submitting to the wife in all things while he busies himself with porn and video games and whatever else. The result has been nothing less than the disintegration of the family unit and the rapid decay of our entire culture. It seems the Bible was onto something when it prescribed men as “leaders,” “heads,” and “overseers” of the home. The consequences of developing a different kind of arrangement have been devastating.
I’ve always thought that the concept of a man being a leader is pretty obvious and ingrained. You know what it looks like when a man is a good leader in his home and what it looks like when he isn’t. I think we pretend not to understand so as to avoid following through. We say, “Male leadership? What is that? I don’t understand!” We do, though, because it’s natural.
But if I had to narrow it down and be more specific, I’d say these are five ways (maybe not the five ways) that we men can “man up” and be leaders in our homes, and it’s in these five ways that many men have, sadly, failed. This, you’ll notice, is a set of general principles, not a practical list of who should do what around the house. Leadership isn’t about that. It’s not as though a man who leads his house should always do the dishes or never do them or always do the yard work or never do it, or whatever. Those are the particular day-to-day things that each family works out for itself. These, on the other hand, are general principles of male leadership that should apply to any Christian household:
Today is the so-called “Day Without A Woman.” The idea is that women are supposed to abandon their jobs, their families and their household duties for the day in order to protest … something. As was the case with the Women’s March, most of the people involved in this demonstration aren’t exactly sure why they’re involved. From my conversations with the feminists who are either supporting or participating in this strike/boycott/whatever, it seems most of them imagine that they’re speaking out against some sort of “inequality.” When asked how, exactly, they’re unequal, they aren’t able to come up with any compelling examples. It’s more of a vague feeling, I guess. And now they’re protesting this vague feeling, and expecting their families, coworkers and employers to pick up the slack for the day.
The organizers of this protest do have a somewhat clearer idea about what they aim to accomplish, although their goals are disconnected and often not related to “women’s issues,” and it seems dubious that any of them can be accomplished by strapping on a vagina hat and calling out of work. The official “unity principals,” which serve as the foundation for today’s display, include abortion on demand, gay rights, open borders, and “environmental justice.” It’s clear, in other words, that this is not “a day without women,” but rather, more specifically, “a day for exclusively left wing feminist women to hold signs and chant slogans instead of doing anything useful.” But I guess that doesn’t roll off your tongue quite as well.
A few thoughts on today:
1. Serious, productive women have no time for this silliness.
I think it will prove a strategic mistake to associate the “Day Without A Woman” with such radical left wing doctrines, thus limiting the potential pool of participants to 22-year-old college girls and aging feminist Baby Boomers. Most of the women who actually, you know, do things in this country — raise families, work real jobs, etc. — are not in either category, therefore ensuring that life will continue on basically as normal for the most part. Now, if you could get the non-feminist mom demographic to go on strike, then you’d really be grinding the social engine to a halt. But the ladies who comprise that category are too busy to worry about these antics.
Days like today make me even more thankful for my wife, who grew up in a generation steeped in feminist mythology but rejected all of it with great enthusiasm. My wife can’t even say the word “feminist” without assuming the facial expression of someone who’s a moment away from vomiting. When I asked her last night what she was doing to commemorate “A Day Without a Woman,” she gave me a confused look (I think that was the first she’d even heard of it) and then told me she’d be bringing the kids to pre-school and then working on the store she runs in her spare time — while also being a stay-at-home mom to three kids under the age of 4 — and then she’ll pick them up three hours later, bring them home, feed them lunch, take care of them for the rest of the day, clean the house, etc. etc. etc. She’s far too much of a grown, mature, adult woman, and she has far too much going on in her life, to bother with these feminist stunts. And thank God for that.
My recommendation to any young man discerning marriage: ask your prospective bride how she feels about modern feminism. If she laughs at you, much as my wife would, you’ve got yourself a keeper. If she takes the opportunity to go on a 18-minute rant about the imaginary “gender wage gap” and the importance of “reproductive rights,” run away as fast as your feet will carry you. My friend, you just dodged a bullet. Praise Jesus.
The post Thank God My Wife Is Too Mature and Responsible for This ‘Day without a Woman’ Silliness appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Sunday, March 12, 2017
Saturday, March 11, 2017
Friday, March 10, 2017
Thursday, March 9, 2017
Wednesday, March 8, 2017
As I mentioned a few days ago, Disney has announced that the new “Beauty and the Beast” film will add a subplot that definitely was not in the original. Specifically, one of the male characters will “explore his sexuality” throughout the movie, leading to, as the director describes it, a “delicious payoff” where the character will engage in an “exclusively gay moment.”
Now, even before taking into consideration this character’s explicit homosexuality, it’s already deeply deranged and disgusting to include an exploration of repressed sexual urges in a kid’s movie about talking household utensils. The director says that the gay character, LeFou, develops a crush on another male character, leading to a dynamic where ” one day LeFou wants to be Gaston and on another day wants to kiss Gaston.” That’s weird and perverse on several levels.
If you wish to actually become the person who is also the object of your sexual desires, you need to seek counseling. It’s not healthy. And it certainly is not a theme that belongs a children’s movie. There will come a time when my kids will learn that this kind of disordered sexuality exists, but now is not the time for them to find out, and this is certainly not the way for them to find out.
With this film, and with so many other Hollywood productions, the goal is not simply to introduce certain facts of life to the viewer, but to promote a certain value system and indoctrinate the viewer into it. The director of “Beauty and the Beast” has been clear that one of his intentions is to normalize homosexuality. He’s chosen a very potent tool by which to do it.
The post Parents, Hollywood Wants to Brainwash Your Kids. Don’t Let Them. appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Tuesday, March 7, 2017
Monday, March 6, 2017
Sunday, March 5, 2017
Saturday, March 4, 2017
Friday, March 3, 2017
President Trump delivered an impressive speech to a joint session of Congress on Tuesday night. He hammered on a lot of familiar Trump themes but did so in a more effective way than we’ve seen before. People will say it was a “presidential” speech, but of course any speech given by a president is, by definition, presidential. Better to say that it was a successful speech. Successful in communicating Trump’s core message in a clear, concise, and even eloquent way.
On the other hand, while Trump’s messaging was on point, Democrat messaging was somewhat less inspiring. Of course, we’re all familiar with how the Clapping Game is played during these speeches: The president’s party gives a standing ovation after every third syllable while the opposition party chooses its applause spots more carefully, usually electing to clap only when bipartisan platitudes are offered. But that changed last night.
Democrats remained seated with their hands in their laps even as Trump uttered the most non-controversial and universal of sentiments. They refused to applaud when Trump said we should put Americans first. The refused to applaud when Trump talked about fighting drug addiction in the inner city and corruption in Washington. They refused to applaud when Trump discussed the need to make sure certain blue collar Americans, like coal miners, still have jobs. They refused to applaud Trump’s vow to fight Islamic terrorism. They refused to applaud when Trump movingly stated that “we all salute the same flag and are made by the same God.” When the president highlighted the victims of illegal immigrant crime, many Democrats let out audible groans of disgust. And, most shameful of all, a number of top Democrats refused to stand and clap as the president honored the widow of a fallen Navy SEAL.
Disgusting. Truly disgusting.
If we were to judge their positions by the things they declined to applaud, we must arrive at the conclusion that Democrats are staunchly opposed to the flag, God, the law, job creation, and military widows, and enthusiastically in favor of drug addiction, terrorism, crime, unemployment, and murder. To those who’ve been paying attention, this is not much of revelation. They’ve given us a lot more than a lack of applause to indicate their positions on these topics. But it’s still somewhat surprising that Democrats are so eager to advertise the fact.
The post Democrats, That Shameful Performance Proves Why Normal Americans Despise Your Party appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Thursday, March 2, 2017
Wednesday, March 1, 2017
Complacency and despondency. I think these are the two great spiritual dangers faced by Christians in our culture, or any culture.
The spiritually complacent Christian is smug and overconfident before God. He does not repent, he does not actively seek God, he does not strive, through His grace, to serve Him more faithfully and follow Him more closely. The complacent Christian has no great love for God and no real consciousness of his own sin. He avoids dwelling on spiritual thoughts because he knows the truth will interfere with his comfortable way of life. The complacent Christian tells himself that he’s already completed the one single task required of Christians: that is, at some individual point in time, he verbally or mentally announced a belief in Him and an acceptance of all that stuff in the Bible — although he doesn’t really know what’s in the Bible, and in fact does not accept most of it.
The complacent Christian believes that he can be selfish, lustful, spiteful, vengeful, adulterous, disobedient, and prideful all he wants. In his mind, he’ll reap the rewards of salvation regardless, despite the fact that Scripture excludes such people from the Kingdom (1 Cor 6:9). He has determine that Christ was exaggerating when He prescribed keeping the commandments as a condition of the Christian life (John 14:15). All we need do, this Christian tells himself, is feel, think, and say that we believe. And not even every day. Just once. Nothing else is required. Sin is irrelevant. Repentance is a symbolic exercise at best, and not a very important one.
Of course, Scripture responds here with a loud rebuke: “If we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, and the truth is not in us.” And again: “If we deliberately keep on sinning after we have received the knowledge of the truth, there is no longer any sacrifice that will cover these sins.” And again: “If you keep my commandments, you will remain in my love.” And again: “My sheep listen to my voice; I know them, and they follow me. I give them eternal life, and they shall never perish.” And again: “If anyone would come after me, let him deny himself and take up his cross and follow me.”
All of these passages clearly indicate the necessity of actively following and listening to Christ, and making actual sacrifices for His sake. This is why the word “if” — the Big If — often appears when Scripture speaks of salvation. But the complacent Christian ignores the “if.” He concludes that following Christ and listening to Him and making sacrifices for Him is far too burdensome a proposition. He declines, therefore, to heed the call. Instead, he wraps himself in a small, random, out-of-context assortment of passages that seem to give him a license to live exactly as he wishes. He trusts, without basis, that he will never go to Hell no matter what he does or how he lives.
On the other hand, the despondent Christian — a category in which I am much more likely to find myself — does not share the complacent Christian’s fatal self-assuredness, but he ends up just as spiritually sedentary. He knows that he must follow Christ. He knows that his sins matter. He knows that repentance is required for salvation. He does not hide from these facts, but he feels he has already been damned by them. He looks at his life, his lengthy resume of sin and moral cowardice, his track record of failure and betrayal, and he feels that he’s dug himself into a spiritual hole from which he can never escape.
The post Christians, There Is No Room for Complacency or Despair in Our Faith appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Tuesday, February 28, 2017
Monday, February 27, 2017
In my podcast today I extend on a conversation we began a few days ago. This past weekend, there were dozens of “I Am Muslim Too” rallies across the country, where people who were not necessarily Muslim still marched with signs saying “I am Muslim” in solidarity with Muslims who, they claim, are being persecuted by Trump’s proposed travel restrictions.
It stands to reason that a large portion of the people who marched for Muslims with “I am Muslim” signs were Christian. In fact, after I wrote about it, I heard from a good number of self-professed Christians who confirmed that they did participate.
There are two problems here: The first, as I said, is that a Christian may not ever proclaim a faith identity other than his own. It doesn’t matter if you’re being “symbolic.” To say “I am Muslim” when in fact you are Christian is to, in effect, renounce your faith.
Second, and this is my larger focus today, how many of these Christians who are not “standing for Muslims” have ever in their lives stood for Christ and their church?
The post Liberal Christians, Why Not Stand up for Your Own Faith for Once? appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.