Tuesday, January 31, 2017
Monday, January 30, 2017
I’m not going to bother with an in depth breakdown of Trump’s Executive Order on immigration. Plenty of those have already been written, and a few of them are even accurate (examples: here and here). I have only a few random points that need to be emphasized:
1. EVERYONE CALM DOWN.
I wasn’t able to pay very close attention to the news this weekend, so I witnessed the hysterical meltdown over the Executive Order before I’d had a chance to read the actual text (a step that 98 percent of the protesters have clearly not taken). From the way the Left went into full meltdown mode, you’d think that Trump took some kind of extreme, incredible, unthinkable step. That is, you might come to that conclusion if you hadn’t noticed that the Left is now in a state of perpetual nuclear meltdown. The Fukushima meltdown went on for three days; the Left’s own nuclear meltdown is sure to outlast that by a factor of a thousand.
Trump’s action here is certainly more than Obama ever did or ever would do, but it’s not entirely unprecedented even by Obama’s standards. As has been pointed out many times since Friday, Obama put a temporary hold on the Iraqi refugee program for 6 months back in 2011. If you happened to be in an airport after Obama signed that order, you may have noticed the complete lack of protesting going on. On second thought, you probably would not have noticed because, back in those ancient times, you never would have expected to see a national panic over a reasonable measure meant to ensure that terrorists aren’t entering the country. But those were also the days when Obama could assassinate US citizens without the Left uttering a word or protest. They were more easy going back then, it seems. I wonder why?
Anyway, yes, Trump’s order goes beyond Obama’s. Trump is putting a hold on the Syrian refugee program until the process can be revamped and security measures are put in place. He’s also suspending all refugee admissions for just 4 months. And he is temporarily preventing the citizens of 7 terrorists hot spots from entering the United States. Those hot spots are: Iraq, Syria, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan, and Yemen. It should be noted that Trump did not single out those countries by name in his Executive Order. He simply adopted the Obama Administration’s list of “countries of concern.” It was Obama who highlighted them initially. Trump just took the next logical step.
If these measures seem radical, they only seem radical to us because we’d grown accustomed to a president who did very little to protect national security and sovereignty. Indeed, we’d grown accustomed to a president who, infamously, couldn’t even bring himself to verbally acknowledge Islamic terrorism. Compared to that, yes, what Trump has done here is absolutely shocking. Looked at objectively, however, it’s honestly not that radical. It’s not a big deal at all, really. It’s a sensible first step towards ensuring that American citizens are better protected from the violence and chaos overseas.
What would these protesters have us do, anyway? Somalia, Syria, Libya — these are failed states. They’re literal breeding grounds for terrorism. They’re like an assembly line for mass murdering zealots. These are some of the most dangerous places on Earth. Nobody is saying that we should never again admit anyone from this region of the world, but it seems enormously sensible to take a brief and temporary pause to assess how we admit them.
Should we not even do that much? Really?
The post If You Call This a ‘Muslim Ban,’ You Are a Shameless Liar appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Sunday, January 29, 2017
Saturday, January 28, 2017
Friday, January 27, 2017
Today I’ll be at the March For Life in DC. I expect it to be different from the march that took over the city last week in a few important ways:
First, there won’t be nearly as many news cameras.
Second, there won’t be any vagina costumes or vagina signs or vagina hats. There won’t be any reproductive organs on display at all, except perhaps by the counter protesters. The participants will be putting their message — not their genitals — forward.
Third, the speakers won’t be going on any vulgar or profane tirades. The march will be family friendly.
Fourth, there won’t be any discussion of blowing up the White House.
Fifth, the marchers will not be demanding any special entitlements. They will not be looking for free birth control, or free tampons, or free anything. They will not be making any personal demands, because this march is not about them. The people who make their voices heard today do so not for their own sake. They do so for the sake of those who cannot speak for themselves.
The march participants stand to gain nothing from this. Their motivations cannot be selfish because their demands are not self-serving. Every single person — hundreds of thousands of them — will be marching in the place of someone else. The march last week, and so many others of its type, have been made up mostly of people saying, “Do such and such for me. Give me something. Help me. Me. Me. Me.” But the March For Life is different. The March For Life says, “Do this for them. Give them a chance. Give them their rights. Help them. Them. Them. Them.”
And the “them,” of course, are pre-born children. Whereas the people at the so-called Women’s March said, “Forget them, let them die,” we at the March For Life say, “Remember them, let them live.” These are the two competing points of view. Here is the great dividing line in our culture. The question is asked and must be answered: “Should these children be given a chance to live or not?” How you answer that question will determine on which side of the line you belong.
Our culture has answered with a cruel and callous “no” for the past 40 years. The so-called Women’s March echoed that answer. The feminist movement, liberalism, the media, the Democratic Party, academia — all of these powerful forces join together in shouting “no.” No, give them no chance. Give them nothing. Take everything from them. Take their dignity. Take their rights. Take their lives. And when they are dead, take some more. Take their limbs, their livers, their brains, their hearts, carve them up and make use of the pieces. Take it all. They are nothing to us. They are insects. They are lower than insects because we would sooner acknowledge the life of an insect than the life of this “clump of cells.” They are dirt. Let them die, then. Pick apart their carcasses and throw the rest in the dumpster. This is the answer the pro-aborts shout proudly from the rooftops.
Well, today in Washington DC a great many people will gather to deliver a different answer.
Thursday, January 26, 2017
I have long said that feminism and “transgenderism” are on a crash course. They cannot really coexist under the umbrella of the same ideology. Liberalism cannot put forward the notion that a woman’s reproductive organs afford her certain entitlements and special rights while at the same time putting forward the notion that a woman’s reproductive organs are not essential aspects of her womanhood. Liberalism especially cannot claim that men have no business formulating opinions about women’s issues due to our lack of a vagina while at the same time claiming that men can actually be women despite our lack of a vagina.
Either a woman’s anatomy means something or it doesn’t. Either men can intrude into spaces that are uniquely feminine or they cannot. Either our bodies are inherent to our identity or they are not. It’s impossible to answer “both” to any of these questions. It’s even more impossible to answer “both” to all three of them.
So, what’s it going to be? If the feminists are right about everything, then the “transgender rights” advocates are wrong about everything. And if the “transgender rights” advocates are right about everything, then feminists are wrong about most things.
The post Hey Feminists and ‘Transgenders’, You Need to Get Your Stories Straight appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Wednesday, January 25, 2017
Tuesday, January 24, 2017
On Saturday, thousands of ladies in vagina hats descended upon DC to demand more dead babies.
They demanded other things, too, like free birth control and free tampons and a free Palestine. They demanded equal rights, even though they already have equal rights. They demanded that the wage gap be closed, even though the wage gap is a fabrication. And they demanded that the government “get out of their uterus,” even though the government was never — and, really, for logistical reasons never could be — in their uterus.
The march was an eclectic mix of non sequiturs and falsehoods. Every aspect of feminist mythology was represented in one way or another. But unlimited access to abortion was the theme that tied it all together. Before the march even began, abortion on demand had been proclaimed an essential “unity principle” of the so-called “Women’s March.” They were so serious about this principle that pro-life groups were barred from participating. It’s fair to say that once a political demonstration cites baby murder as a fundamental value, nothing else it stands for really matters. I cannot take a march seriously after it has professed an affinity for child killing just as I cannot willingly consume your homemade chocolate cake after you inform me that fecal matter is one of its ingredients.
But I’m not sure that I could have taken the march seriously even if continuing the mass slaughter of children hadn’t been named as one of its fundamental goals. It’s hard to take people seriously when they’re all wearing genitalia-themed beanies, after all. It’s even more difficult when they’ve adorned themselves in vagina masks, and full vagina costumes, and are carrying vagina signs, including some grossly explicit and some casually sacrilegious. But please don’t think that it was only a bunch of vaginas walking around. Penises were sometimes represented in the signage and the outfits as well, though usually with a derisive tone. Feminists, as you’ve noticed, are rather obsessed with genitals. That’s why they can’t get together for any kind of event without half of them showing up dressed as their own reproductive organs.
The speakers who addressed the vagina-clad hordes were as inspiring as you’d imagine. One of them came on stage in a dress with the word “abortion” scrawled across it in huge, proud letters (did I mention that these ladies REALLY love abortion?). Cecile Richards, Planned Parenthood CEO and the most prolific mass murder in the world, spoke before the adoring throngs and courageously resolved to go on killing babies no matter what obstacles are put in her way. Refusing to be outdone, Madonna stood behind the podium and, to the sound of applause, openly fantasized about blowing up the White House. The most esteemed speaker of the afternoon, former actress Ashley Judd, refused to be overshadowed by any of them. In a bold attempt to be the craziest person in Washington that day, Judd let loose with a bit of feminist slam poetry that included this line:
“I am not as nasty as your own daughter being your favorite sex symbol, like your wet dreams infused with your own genes.”
The post Let’s Not Insult Women by Calling That Shameful Nonsense a “Women’s March” appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
It has been remarked upon many times that the people who most regularly preach “tolerance” are often the people who are least likely to demonstrate it. I’ve mentioned my own experiences dealing with the Tolerance Mob. I have found them to be largely vicious, ruthless, and as close-minded as any group on Earth. Tolerant? Not hardly.
But we all get it. Liberals show absolutely no tolerance while they shriek about tolerance. That’s been observed a million times over because the dichotomy is just so absurd and so obvious that you can’t help but observe it and comment on it. What I try to talk about in my podcast today is not just the fact that the Prophets of Tolerance are relentlessly intolerant, but why. Why is it that the people who have raised tolerance to a virtue are so incapable of living by the virtue themselves?
I think the answer goes beyond mere hypocrisy. The answer is that these people cannot live by the tolerance virtue because tolerance is not a virtue. It is a word that means very little and, in terms of moral principles, it means nothing…
Monday, January 23, 2017
Sunday, January 22, 2017
Saturday, January 21, 2017
Friday, January 20, 2017
Thursday, January 19, 2017
The Democrats have, for several months now, been in a state of convulsive rage over WikiLeaks. They tell us that WikiLeaks is in league with Putin. They tell us that WikiLeaks subverted our system and destabilized the very foundations of our democracy. WikiLeaks stole the election. Sabotage! So on and so forth.
With this in mind, it seems a little odd that right in the midst of this apocalyptic hand wringing over WikiLeaks, the president would choose to commute the sentence of a guy who went into a war zone, stole reams of classified files, and gave them to WikiLeaks. Bradley Manning didn’t merely release email correspondences between DNC officials where they complain about Bernie Sanders and talk about spirit cooking. These weren’t embarrassing revelations about a political party. These were hundreds of thousands of secret documents relating to national security, appropriated during a time of war, and “leaked” indiscriminately with no regard to how it would undermine our war efforts and even less regard for the lives it put at risk. The Democrats apparently want us to believe that humiliating Hillary Clinton is a far worse crime than jeopardizing the safety of our troops, intelligence officers, and allies. The word “outrageous” does not even begin to describe what’s going on here.
It would appear self-defeating as well. Why would the Democrats — who have almost unanimously applauded this move, by the way — suddenly decide to undermine their own case against WikiLeaks? Shameful hypocrisy has never slowed them down before, granted, but even by their standards this is a rather extreme case of it. They must know that they’ve made it impossible for anyone to take them seriously the next time they whine about email leaks and “election hacking.” It so discredits them, makes so little sense, makes them look so utterly foolish, renders their own arguments so fantastically irrelevant, that you may conclude that the entire Democrat Party has gone into a state of collective psychosis.
That’s not a bad theory. Not too far from the truth, either. But there is, you might say, a method to this madness. And you can understand the method once you understand that, in the world of modern leftism, the letters “LGBT” override anything and everything. At the very top of the progressive Victimhood Hierarchy sit the members of this elite club. Any opportunity to advance their cause must be exploited. Any time the Great Cause and some other concern collides, the Cause wins out. These are the priorities of leftism nowadays. Its only one priority, really. Nothing — and I truly mean nothing — is more important than its sexual agenda.
The post Bradley Manning is Still a Traitor. He’s Also Still a Man. appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Wednesday, January 18, 2017
Tuesday, January 17, 2017
As I mentioned in my previous post, it has been decided that I am this week’s Worst Person Ever for a couple of things I recently wrote.
One was a criticism of the idea that the government should fund your birth control. I’ve already expanded upon that (correct and appropriate) criticism here. The other was a tweet and an article — or really a homophobic rant stemming from my fragile masculinity, as its been described by the media — warning fathers that we need to be there to raise our sons lest they grow up confused about their masculine identity:
Dads, this is why you need to be there to raise your sons. http://pic.twitter.com/8ybirgppKi
— Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) January 6, 2017
The man in the picture goes by the name Manny Mua. He was recently anointed as Maybelline’s new spokesmodel. He responded to what I said, which resulted in his fans displaying their tolerance and open mindedness in the usual way. My friend Manny spent a while retweeting and “liking” many of the attacks against me, obviously trying to encourage more of it. So, more and more of his fans dutifully came to remind me that Manny is a kind and compassionate and gentle and utterly perfect human being while I am a barely sentient bucket of vomit and I should immediately hang myself so as to free the Earth from the burden of my existence, and so on. (The “sentient bucket of vomit” thing is verbatim, by the way. I had to respect it for its originality at least. Although I had to wonder how an animated mass of vomit would go about hanging itself. The logistical difficulties seem insurmountable, if you ask me.)
Manny’s dad soon chimed in, understandably so. He told me that he supports what his son does, he did raise him well, and my comment stems from ignorance about the LGBT community, which is populated by some of the “most real and most kindhearted people” on Earth. It was, according to Manny, a “f*cken SAVAGE” beat down, and according to Yahoo News and other outlets it was an epic comeback that succeeded in “nailing” a “bigot” and a “homophobe,” etc. I don’t know, I thought his response was more measured than that. At least a lot more measured than the tolerant liberals who told me that my kids should die of AIDS .
Anyway, I’m not actually interested in getting into an argument about how this particular makeup model was raised. As I said in the article I wrote on the topic last week, it’s certainly possible that a boy could be raised by a good father and still end up living a confused and disordered lifestyle. That very well could have been the case with Manny. I have no idea. Maybe he’s the exception to the rule. Could be. Who knows?
That’s why I never said “This dude, specifically, was raised by a crappy dad.” Rather, I said “this sort of dude is why dads — plural, universal — need to raise their sons.” Much like I might point to a liquor store robbery in the inner city and say “this is why inner city kids need dads at home.” If it were to turn out that the particular liquor store robber in the particular case I used to make my general point did indeed have an attentive father at home, that wouldn’t negate my point. Nor would I apologize for using that case to make the point. It’s still true, regardless of that person’s biography, that this is the sort of thing that is often the result, or partly the result, of a dad not being physically, spiritually, and/or emotionally present in the home.
I’m also not going to get into another long explanation as to why men shouldn’t dress themselves up as women. I’ve already done that. To summarize, my reasoning goes like this: Men shouldn’t dress up like women because men aren’t women. There’s a certain logic to that, you have to admit. But we can once again go into detail on that revolutionary idea another time. Instead what I’d like to focus on is the Left’s relentless attempt to have it both ways on every topic imaginable. Yesterday we discussed how they do this with respect to birth control. Now we have another great example.
I’ll show you what I mean with two points:
The post If Your Lifestyle is None of My Business, Stop Demanding That I Celebrate it appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
A lot of people have been offering their, um, feedback, to a couple of things I tweeted over the past week or so. And when I say “feedback” I mean that an angry mob numbering in the thousands descended upon my social media feeds and email inbox like rabid hyenas, eager to inform me that I’m awful, evil, ugly, fat, old, stupid, [expletive], [expletive], [expletive] [expletive] [expletive], etc., and because of this I should die, my wife should die, my children should die, everyone who has ever said a kind word to me should burn to death in a house fire, and my kids, who should already be dead, should also somehow become gay and transgender and pregnant so that karmic justice may be visited upon me, a bigot and a Nazi who is literally worse than a millions Hitlers combined.
Of the thousands of responses I received since Friday, easily 95 percent of them consisted of some combination of these. Because of my unspeakable tweets, I have been objectively described as an “anti-LGBTQ bigot” in the headlines of news articles. So far as I know, nobody who has written an article matter-of-factly calling me a bigot took the time to reach out to me first, but I suppose if I’d followed the clearly outlined instructions of the leftist Tolerance Brigade, I should have killed myself by now anyway. I guess they assumed I wouldn’t be able to comment because I’d be too busy playing Backgammon with my friend Adolf in Hell.
I say all of this not to paint myself as a victim but to again drive home the point that the people who preach the loudest about “acceptance” and “tolerance” are often the least likely to demonstrate those qualities when the opportunity presents itself. I think this is an important point not because it exposes them as hypocrites — although it does that, for certain — but because it exposes “acceptance” and “tolerance” as faux virtues.
Nobody on Earth accepts and tolerates everything, nor should they. Things should only be accepted and tolerated if they are acceptable and tolerable. Liberals deny that any standard of acceptability and tolerability can be imposed, yet they have no problem ruthlessly imposing such standards themselves. So it isn’t that conservatives are less tolerant than liberals, it’s that we have different ideas about what is tolerable. Liberals clearly believe that my ideas and my very existence are intolerable, proving that they do not actually consider tolerance a universal principle. They’re right. It’s not.
With that established, I’d like to elaborate on the two horrible things I said on Twitter which caused such an absurd backlash.
First, provoking the ire of our nation’s feminists, I said this:
“If you actually cannot afford birth control then you are not nearly mature or responsible enough to be having sex in the first place.”
Second, unrelated and actually from a week before, in reference to the man who was just named spokesmodel for Maybelline but intended as a general comment about men who reject their masculine nature in order to appropriate femininity, I said this:
“Dads, this is why you need to be there to raise your sons.”
I already elaborated on that second point. I’ll have more to say about it later, but I’m going to start with the birth control topic. I should stipulate upfront and for the record that I issue no apology for either statement, neither am I interested in “explaining myself.” Myself is irrelevant. I’m not the topic here. I don’t really care if you think I’m a horrible person, but I do care about the issues at hand. If I’m given an opportunity to go further into depth about them, I will gladly take it.
The post If Your Sex Life is None of My Business, Stop Demanding That I Finance It appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Monday, January 16, 2017
Sunday, January 15, 2017
Omit and Retract…Later
The frequency which this propaganda technique is being employed by the Washington Post is breathtaking. Readers of said paper, beware! An article is run with a false or misleading headline, significant errors or ommissions in the content and then corrected later after being disseminated throughout the bloggesphere and social media. Retractions or corrections are never disseminated in a similarly broad fashion therefore the original distorted content gets traction in the minds of the people who are already on to the next news cycle and barely paying attention when the correction is made. Brietbart has the story on the latest propaganda sleigh of hand.
The Washington Post’s original report set off a wave of stories across the world, causing raised eyebrows over Trump’s “extremely unusual” decision to fire a general in the middle of the presidential oath of office ceremony, especially during these dangerous times.
The paper reported that Major General Errol R. Schwartz, who has commanded the D.C. National Guard since his appointment to the position by George W. Bush, was told to vacate his office the moment Trump says his “I dos” to the oath of office. The decision was presented to readers as unfathomable, if not dangerous, by a president who doesn’t know what he is doing.
In an interview, General Schwartz told the paper that his firing was strange. “The timing is extremely unusual,” the general said.
“My troops will be on the street,” Schwartz continued. “I’ll see them off, but I won’t be able to welcome them back to the armory.” The general added he would “never plan to leave a mission in the middle of a battle.”
Subsequent to the publishing of the paper’s story making Trump appear incompetent, news emerged that the incoming Trump administration offered to let General Schwartz keep his position through inauguration day, but it was the general himself who refused the offer, preferring instead to quit at 12 noon on January 20, the hour Trump takes his oath of office.
The general then ran straight to the media to “argue his case in the press,” as a recent Fox News report noted.
The post A Very Effective Propaganda Technique-Omit and Retract…later appeared first on PropagandaGuard.
Saturday, January 14, 2017
A report entitled Making Citizens: How American Universities Teach Civics recently released by the National Association of Scholars, a network of scholars and citizens commited to academic freedom, disinterested scholarship, and excellence in American higher education, reveals the extensive indoctrination taking place in the name of “New Civics”. “New Civics” is Civics redefined as progressive political activism. an up-to-date version of volunteerism and good works. “Instead of teaching college students the foundations of law, liberty, and self-government, colleges teach students how to organize protests, occupy buildings, and stage demonstrations. Though camouflaged with soft rhetoric, the New Civics, properly understood, is an effort to repurpose higher education.”
- The transformation includes:
- De-carbonizing the economy
- Massively redistributing wealth,
- Intensifying identity group grievance
- Curtailing the free market
- Expanding government bureaucracy
- Elevating international “norms” over American Constitutional law
- Disparaging our common history and ideals
The report’s findings suggest that the suppression of free speech on college campuses that is making headlines is only the tip of a very large iceberg. What lies beneath the surface is a massive, publicly funded program of indoctrination through a remaking of the curriculum as a vehicle for advancing the political agenda of progressivism.
The full NAS report, MAKING CITIZENS: HOW AMERICAN UNIVERSITIES TEACH CIVICS, can be found here
The “New Civics” can accurately be called indoctrination because it is far more ambitious and open than the left-liberal bias in classroom instruction encountered by students for decades. Yes, 90% of college faculty in the liberal arts and humanities are liberal and progressive, and classroom propaganda
The “New Civics” is replacing traditional “civic literacy,” and it’s campus-wide ambitions have the endorsement and support of university administrators. In public institutions like the four cases documented in the MAKING CITIZENS report, it sees no conflict in using taxpayer dollars to accomplish its progressive mission. Read More
Friday, January 13, 2017
There’s been a lot of talk over the past few weeks about Barack Obama’s “legacy.” I think he will be remembered for many things, none of them good, but his greatest legacy is precisely the opposite of the legacy he claimed he would leave: the utter collapse of race relations in this country.
The funny thing is that prior to this great “unifier” making his way in the White House, race relations in America were better than they’d ever been. Better than they were anywhere in the world, even. There wasn’t perfect harmony, of course, but most of us got along OK and there wasn’t a thick atmosphere of racial tension in the air.
Then Obama gets in there, and next thing you know we have race riots and looting and cops getting gunned down by racial crusaders and seemingly every week there’s another race related incident on the front page. Prior to Obama, most in my generation had never seen, or couldn’t remember, anything like this. Obama made things so much worse that I don’t think he could have made them any worse if he’d explicitly tried to do so. And in fact I believe that he did explicitly try to do so, and succeeded.
The post Obama’s Greatest Legacy Is the Utter Collapse of Race Relations in This Country appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Thursday, January 12, 2017
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Tuesday, January 10, 2017
I confess that I don’t usually keep up to speed on the marketing campaigns of make up companies, but a couple of recent ones were hard to miss. First, it was announced that the new Cover Girl would be a person named James Charles, who is indeed not a girl at all. Feeling left out, Maybelline countered by naming Manny Gutierrez as its brand ambassador. Also not a girl. The country braces itself for the day when Tampax joins the fray.
It should be clarified — because this is the sort of thing that needs to be clarified these days — that James and Manny do not identify as women. There is no risk of them being named women of the year as Glamour Magazine did for Bruce Jenner. But they and the companies they represent have co-opted femininity in a very similar way, turning it into a grotesque sort of mask, something that can be worn when the mood strikes and removed just as quickly.
Maybelline’s announcement comes directly on the heels of National Geographic’s now infamous cover story about the young, abused boy who has “given up pretending to be a boy” so that he can assume his “true identity” as a girl. His parents have decided to parade him around like a circus sideshow act, ensuring that their poor son’s psychological crisis will be witnessed by a large and approving crowd. And this has all happened in the last few weeks. The assault on science, reason, masculinity, and femininity continues to gain steam.
As I watch all of this, one point especially comes to mind, obvious though it ought to be: this is why boys need dads.
I do not know the life story of our friends James and Manny. I’m told that at least one of them comes from an intact family where a father was present and active in the home. Perhaps that really is the case. It’s certainly possible — though unlikely, I would think — that a boy could have the best dad in the world and still turn into a makeup model. Children have a will and an identity of their own, after all, and there’s only so much we can do to shape it.
The post Dads, We Can’t Expect Our Sons to Become Real Men If We Don’t Teach Them How appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
When I heard that Meryl Streep had given a speech at the Golden Globes blasting Donald Trump and Trump’s voters, my first thought was: “Oh, that’s on tonight?” And then I thought: “Wait, there were only like three good movies in 2016. How could they even do a whole awards show?” And then I thought: “Anyway, who cares about any of this?”
Of course, a lot of people do care. They shouldn’t, but they do. And Hollywood has a profound influence on our culture. It shouldn’t, but it does. So, although I sort of cringe at myself for jumping into this conversation, it may be worth saying a few words on the subject nonetheless.
First, a quick and probably unnecessary recap: Meryl Streep was called to the podium to receive a lifetime achievement award last night. She began her speech by complaining that the press and Hollywood celebrities are “the most vilified segments of American society.” She then rattled off a list of overpaid actors who were born in other countries, and warned us that if all of these actors are kicked out of America (a plan nobody has seriously suggested, although I would be open to discussing such a proposal) that would leave us with only “mixed martial arts and football” to watch on TV. As millions of people immediately called up their cable providers to see if they could purchase a package like that, Streep transitioned back into complimenting herself and her Hollywood compatriots.
Actors “enter the lives of people who are different” in order to “let you feel what that feels like,” she said proudly. That brought her to her attack on Donald Trump, which inevitably included attacks on the 60 million people who voted for him. Conjuring an image of rabid dogs, she said that Trump’s bullying made his supporters “show their teeth.” She finished, finally, by lavishing more praise on Hollywood and the press. Hollywood “safeguards the truth,” she swooned, and they all ought to be proud of themselves. They can teach the world to be “empathetic” and “understanding.” “The powerful are using their position to bully others,” Streep warned, but fortunately Hollywood rises above it. And from its position of moral supremacy it acts as society’s guardian angels. The crowd of well-heeled angels roared with approval as Streep left the stage.
The post Don’t Flatter Yourself, Meryl Streep. You People Are the Biggest Bullies of All. appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Bernie Sanders suggested this week that college graduates should not only have their student loans erased, but they should be provided with “affordable” houses on top of it. This can go along nicely with the free birth control and free health care they require. Now is there anything else we can get them? Free massage chairs? Free foot rubs? A lifetime supply of roast beef sandwiches from Arby’s?
In my podcast, I make a couple of points about the entitlement of college students and graduates in my generation. The first point, as it pertains to college, is very simple but very important. Here it is: If you can’t afford college, don’t go to college. That really applies to everything in life. If you can’t afford it, don’t do it. The dumbest and most irresponsible thing is to buy the thing you can’t afford and then complain, after you’ve already purchased it, that you can’t afford it.
The post This Is Very Simple: If You Can’t Afford College, Don’t Go to College appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Monday, January 9, 2017
Sunday, January 8, 2017
Saturday, January 7, 2017
This kind of thing isn’t even unique. The white man kidnapped and savagely tortured by a group of racist thugs wasn’t the first to fall victim to a hate crime of this sort in Chicago recently. It was only a few weeks ago that a white Trump supporter was dragged from his truck by a group of black teens and ruthlessly beaten in the middle of the street while a crowd of onlookers egged them on. A pattern is emerging. And it’s getting worse.
Edited version from Fox32 in Chicago below. Some may consider this graphic.
The latest incident stands out because of its brazen cruelty. The victim — a white, mentally disabled teenager — was bound, gagged, and brutalized, all for the amusement of his captors. They hurled abuse at him, screaming “f*ck white people” and “f*ck Donald Trump.” They forced him to drink water out of a toilet. They dragged him around by his neck. They cut off pieces of his scalp. And this is just what we saw in the 30 minute video, which one of the assailants broadcast live on Facebook. Police think the victim, who was found wandering the streets dazed and in shock on Tuesday evening, was held captive for at least 24 hours. One can only imagine what other indignities he suffered at the hands of these psychopaths.
A lot can and will be said about this incident (by conservatives, mainly), but I’d like to offer a couple of thoughts on the “hate crime” angle of this story. The Chicago police chief has already said that hate crime charges are not guaranteed:
“Although they are adults, they’re 18. Kids make stupid decisions — I shouldn’t call them kids; they’re legally adults, but they’re young adults, and they make stupid decisions,” Duffin said.
“That certainly will be part of whether or not … we seek a hate crime, to determine whether or not this is sincere or just stupid ranting and raving.”
For the record, “kids” make a “stupid decision” to “rant and rave” when they talk back to their parents or disrespect their teachers. When they graduate to scalping the mentally disabled, they have far exceeded the bounds of what may be described as a mere “stupid decision.” Let’s call it an evil decision. A demonic decision. A decision that ought to land them 50 years in prison. And the attempt by law enforcement and the media to downplay the severity of this crime is an evil all to its own.
As far as the “hate crime” designation goes, there is no question that, according to the law, this qualifies. No further investigation is needed on this front. A group of black people falsely imprisoned a white man and shouted racist slurs as they gleefully tortured him. The statute requires that any crime motivated by racism be tried as a federal hate crime. OK, well, the perps announced their racial prejudices explicitly, on video, and their actions clearly fell in line with their verbal pronouncements. Case closed.
The post This Was Not Merely a Hate Crime — It Was Much Worse appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Lena Dunham, who is famous for unclear reasons, said this week that she “wishes” she had an abortion. In a recent episode of her podcast — which, I’m told, detainees at CIA black sites in Afghanistan are forced to listen to as a form of enhanced interrogation — Dunham lamented her lack of abortion street cred:
“But one day, when I was visiting a Planned Parenthood in Texas a few years ago, a young girl walked up to me and asked me if I’d like to be a part of her project in which women share their stories of abortions,” Dunham said. “I sort of jumped. ‘I haven’t had an abortion,’ I told her. I wanted to make it really clear to her that as much as I was going out and fighting for other women’s options, I myself had never had an abortion.”
“And I realized then that even I was carrying within myself stigma around this issue,” Dunham continued. “Even I, the woman who cares as much as anybody about a woman’s right to choose, felt it was important that people know I was unblemished in this department.”
…“I feel so proud of them for their bravery, for their self-knowledge, and it was a really important moment for me then to realize I had internalized some of what society was throwing at us and I had to put it in the garbage,” she said. “Now I can say that I still haven’t had an abortion, but I wish I had.”
She has since apologized for what she now describes as a “distasteful joke.” But it’s hard to put the genie back in the bottle after you’ve revealed that one of your greatest regrets in life is that you were deprived of the opportunity to murder a child.
Of course, abortion regret is a very real and serious thing, but it almost always goes in the other direction. A great many women live with immense guilt and grief after electing to kill their babies. Then, unfortunately, a large number of them find that they cannot live with it, as the sky high suicide rate among post-abortive women tragically attests.
It’s extremely rare to find a mother so selfish and disturbed that she regrets not having aborted her child, although those sorts of mothers do exist, sadly. The terrible reality is that some parents — a rare breed, thankfully — are so pathologically self-absorbed and callous that they resent their children for existing. But Dunham has no kids to resent. She has successfully avoided getting pregnant, she claims, yet she wishes she had an abortion not to be rid of a child she loathes, but just for the experience of it; for the conversation piece; for how useful that abortion we be politically. In other words, Lena Dunham is a sociopath. She displays the kind of cold, casual inhumanity and disregard for life that you may encounter when you read testimony from defendants at the Nuremburg Trials. And, we must remember, this is a mainstream celebrity. She campaigned for Hillary Clinton.
But leaving aside her now backtracked “regret” comments, Dunham’s primary point is that abortion should not have a “stigma” around it. Even in her apology she reiterated that her goal is to promote the abortion industry and take the “stigma” away from child murder. She takes this mission very seriously, she says. Indeed, “more seriously than literally anything else.”
The post There’s A “Stigma” Around Abortion Only Because It’s Pure Evil — and We All Know It appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
MTV, in an apparent effort to ensure a second term of Donald Trump, released a video this week entitled, “2017 Resolutions For White Guys.” After I got over the shock of learning that MTV still exists, I watched the clip and was greeted by the ironic, self-satisfied faces of effeminate millennial progressives as they smugly lectured white men. One of them was wearing a cat shirt and a cardigan. Another had apparently been assembled in the Feminist Stereotype Factory. When she spoke, she raised her eyebrows and grinned condescendingly, because feminists are physically incapable of speaking in any other way.
Their resolutions for the dreaded white man went as follows:
1. Realize that “America was never great for anyone who wasn’t a white guy.”
2. “Agree that black lives matter.”
3. Realize that “blue lives matter isn’t a thing” because “cops weren’t born with blue skin.”
4. “Stop saying ‘woke’.”
5. “Learn what ‘mansplaining’ is, and then stop doing it.”
6. “Don’t prioritize the well being of an Ivy League athlete over the well being of the woman he assaulted.” (This one seemed oddly specific.)
7. Realize that “we all love Beyonce” and it’s OK if she “cares about black issues.”
8. Stop saying you have black friends because “you can still be racist with black friends.”
After the trendy 20-somethings who’ve never done anything with their lives except sit in classrooms had finally finished delivering their instructions, they offered a few words of encouragement: “Nobody’s perfect, but honestly you could do a little better. Some of you do a great job. But some of you don’t.” A magnanimous concession, I must admit.
Well, as a longtime member of the villainous white man cabal, I would first like to extend my heartfelt gratitude for these generous suggestions. Unfortunately however, after careful consideration, I have decided to disregard all of them. In fact, I never even used the word “woke” or bragged about my black friends before, but now I may start doing both of those things just because I know it will upset 24-year-old liberals in cat shirts.
The good news, though, is that these resolutions have inspired me to come up with some of my own. Not for myself, mind you, but for smarmy millennial liberals. I offer these resolutions as an act of kindness, although there is a part of me that very much hopes they are not heeded. After all, liberalism is sure to continue losing as long as it keeps marching down this path, and far be it for me to interfere with that process. But it’s almost Christmas and I’m feeling more charitable than usual, so I will pass along these recommendations and let the chips fall where they may.
Here we go.
Resolution 1: Stop being bigots.
Before you make some blanket statement about white men, imagine what the statement would sound like if you replaced “white men” with any other demographic group. For example, the video begins by saying, “Hey white guys, here are a few things you could do better in 2017.” Now imagine a video that began, “Hey black women, here are a few things you could do better in 2017,” or, “Hey Mexicans, here are a few things you could do better in 2017,” or, “Hey transgendered Asians, here are a few things you could do better in 2017.”
You would need months of counseling after watching any of those, wouldn’t you? And why is that? Well, because you’re incredibly sensitive, but also because you would most certainly consider it the height of bigotry for anyone to spend two minutes telling black people, or Mexicans, or homosexuals all of the things they need to stop doing and stop saying and stop believing. And you’d probably be right.
The post Hey, Smug Millennial Liberals — Here Are Some New Year’s Resolutions for You appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Abortion fans have been pretty outraged this week.
They’re always outraged about something, of course, but it seems their outrage has been manifesting itself in increasingly deranged ways. The derangement reached a crescendo these past few days when feminists across the state of Texas mailed their bloody tampons to the governor. For the record, it’s against the law to mail bodily fluids unless you’ve stored the sample safely (I’m assuming a used tampon does not qualify as safe storage), but aside from being illegal it’s also a fantastically stupid and unspeakably vile act. Even more so when you consider why, exactly, they’ve turned their feminine hygiene products into postcards: to protest a law requiring abortion clinics to bury or cremate the remains of aborted children.
One must truly despise human life to become outraged that dead bodies are being treated with some semblance of dignity. It’s one thing to throw the murdered children in the dumpster like soiled diapers after harvesting them for parts — it’s another thing to actually feel offended if they aren’t disposed of in this manner. To tolerate such an atrocity just makes you a narcissist and a moral coward, but to be personally and emotionally invested in the desecration of human remains makes you something closer to a sociopath or a satanist.
Then again, what choice to pro-aborts have? If they agree that human children ought to be treated with dignity after death, they must then entertain the notion that human children ought perhaps to be treated with dignity before death. They can’t even consider the latter, so they must be hostile to the former. This is what supporting abject evil does to you. It essentially forces you to be a sociopath and satanist, because if you let even the faintest glimmer of respect and decency shine from your soul the whole house of cards will come crashing down. You must plunge ever deeper into the darkness if you want to escape the light.
That brings us to the latest news out of Ohio. Governor Kasich signed a ban on abortions after 20 weeks, but vetoed a law that would outlaw prenatal child murder once a heartbeat is detectable (around the sixth week, although the baby will have developed a functioning heart before that point). If the pro-abortion crowd were made up of more cheerful and optimistic types, they might have seen this as a win. After all, women in Ohio still have five months to decide whether they want to kill their children. A 20 week return policy on a human being is still 20 weeks longer than it should be, and, one would think, plenty of time for the abortion-inclined to make up their minds.
In the realm of abortion fanaticism, however, any restriction whatsoever on baby murder must be greeted with hysteria. Liberals did not disappoint, screaming that Ohio’s moderate abortion restriction is “extremely anti-women,” a profound “threat to reproductive rights,” and so on. One common theme amidst the leftist freak-out is that this law is “dangerous” because it might force a woman in a high risk pregnancy to carry a child to term, killing her in the process.
This is the fabled “life of the mother” abortion excuse that we’re sure to hear ad nauseum anytime any state attempts to pass even the most meager regulations on the abortion industry. According to pro-abortion radicals, even the Texas law requiring humane treatment of dead babies might somehow result in the deaths of countless women. In Abortion World, abortion saves more lives than it takes. Pregnancy is more fatal than pancreatic cancer and the only thing preventing millions of women from dying from it is abortion. Pregnancy is a disease and abortion is the cure, they believe.
The post Abortion Does Not Preserve a Woman’s Life — It Preserves Her Lifestyle appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.
Let’s always remember, first of all, that the world is full of hypocrites. Things are far less confusing when you come to understand and accept that reality. A great many people do not possess actual convictions nor do they judge events by one set standard. They cobble together a haphazard collection of principles on a case-by-case basis, according to what is convenient at the time. They will pretend to deeply believe in a certain thing one moment, and the next they will abandon it and mock those who still believe the very thing they pretended to believe 18 seconds ago. This is how many people — perhaps most people — operate.
So, when it comes to the unsubstantiated report from the CIA that Russia meddled in our election in order to get Trump elected, you’ll find that many people who were quite unconcerned about Russia and skeptical of the intelligence community up until now have suddenly decided that the CIA is always right and Russia is the gravest global threat we face. On the flip side, you’ll find that many people who were anti-Russia hardliners and basically trustful of the intelligence community up until now have suddenly decided that Russia is harmless, or even an ally, and the CIA is comprised of a bunch of incompetent partisan hacks. Mitt Romney was mocked by liberals and supported by conservatives when he warned about Russia during the 2012 campaign. Today, that idea has gained favor with the very group that mocked it, and fallen out of favor with the very group that supported it.
And it goes without saying that many of the liberals who think this Russia story is a big deal now, would not think it such a big deal if Hillary were the one they allegedly conspired to get elected. And many of the conservatives who think this Russia story is not a big deal these days, would certainly think it an enormous deal if Hillary were the one a foreign state supposedly conspired to get elected. And on and on. Everyone has switched sides on everything. It’s all a game to us, it seems.
For my part, although I think it’s pretty clear that Russia did hack the DNC, I am not remotely convinced and I do not think it’s been at all confirmed that they did it specifically to elect Trump. Just today another report surfaced showing that the FBI does not necessarily agree with the CIA’s assessment. So, we don’t know for certain why Russia did it. We don’t even know for certain that they did it at all. At least I don’t know, and neither do you.
But there are a few things I do know, or think I know, about this whole situation. Here is a list of those things, in no particular order:
The post No, Russia Didn’t Elect Donald Trump — the Voters Did appeared first on The Matt Walsh Blog.