Category Archives: Matt Walsh

When does life begin?

Some guy called Patrick Tomlinson tweeted what he considered to be proof positive that the “life begins at conception” crowd are hypocrites. Briefly, he proposed a situation where a pro-lifer is trapped in a burning fertility clinic and can rescue only a five-year-old child crying for help or a frozen box labeled “1000 Viable Human Embryos.” Which would you choose? The child, of course. GOTCHA! You don’t really believe life begins at conception. Ba-da-bum.

Matt Walsh skillfully and logically took his silly hypothetical to pieces. Just one paragraph of his article:

“It doesn’t matter how I value them personally. It’s their intrinsic value that matters. I value my family over your family but your family has the same intrinsic value. I’m making the decision based, as I said before, on emotion. I can see the child. I hear him crying. I’m looking him in the eyes. I grab him. It’s instinct. But there’s also some logic to it. I don’t really know how many of those embryos are still viable and whether they’ll ever be implanted and given the chance to develop. Again: this calculation WOULD NOT justify killing the embryos under any circumstance, but it would justify my decision to save the child instead. By the way, if it were a five-year-old and a 70-year-old in there, I’d save the five-year-old. If it were a five-year-old and Patrick Tomlinson in there, I’m still saving the five-year-old. Sorry, Pat. But does that mean Pat’s life has less value? Does that mean I could crush his skull and suck his brains out with a vacuum hose? No, it just means that my emotional impulse leads me to the child, not the pretentious pro-abortion dude who spends his time posing disingenuous hypotheticals.”

Tomlinson responded to Walsh’s response: “Oh Matty. If only I gave a shit what you think.”

Wait, what? Didn’t he specifically ASK pro-lifers to respond to his hypothetical?!

Walsh pithily responded with this.

2017_10 17 Walsh responds

Another tweeter added the cymbal crash with:

“It’s like watching Batman solve the Riddler’s puzzle, and the Riddler’s subsequent tantrum afterward.”

LOL!

Sources:

Advertisements

4 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Life Issues, Matt Walsh

SJWs and their FAKE issues

I wish the people who get upset about these kinds of stoooooooooopid non-issues would spare a moment of concern for the victims of abortion and sex trafficking.

2017_03 23 Wonder Woman's arm pits

Also from Matt Walsh:

In another fake outrage story. Shannon Watts, known for being the founder of a leftist anti-gun group, tweeted that “girls in leggings” were being prevented from boarding her United flight. Of course the story went immediately viral with everyone sneering at United for its “sexism” (because apparently one must be pro-Spandex if one is to be pro-woman).

There were already boycotts being organized before anyone bothered to look into the real story. And the real story is that “girls in leggings” are allowed to fly United, unless they are flying on the employee discount given to family members of United employees. In that case, a professional dress code is enforced, which reasonably rules out Spandex pants as well as many other forms of unprofessional attire.

Perhaps we will eventually be treated to a day free from fake, ginned up outrage, but today was not that day. Better luck tomorrow.

Sources:

Comments Off on SJWs and their FAKE issues

Filed under Feminism, Matt Walsh

What Christ Actually SAID

2017_03 18 PP and Bible

From Matt Walsh:

Christ does call you to give to the poor, but take note of that word: you. 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.

Sources:

1 Comment

Filed under Christianity, Matt Walsh

If you just started caring about political scandals again, you’re a brazen hypocrite

From Matt Walsh:

You have to give us a little while for our eyes to adjust. It’s dizzying, you understand. A bit disorienting.

The media took an eight year break from covering White House scandals, and now, after these past 96 months of silence, they’ve suddenly got their noses to the ground and are tracking the scent of corruption once again. A full 8 years of inaction and, miraculously, out of nowhere, like Sleeping Beauty kissed by Prince Charming, they’ve opened their eyes and risen from their long slumber.

Most of us would probably lose our jobs if we decided not to do them for 3,000 days in a row, but journalists are a privileged lot. I thought school teachers were lucky because they get to take 3 months off every year, but that’s nothing compared to the media. News reporters are allowed to go into a state of virtual hibernation for as long as there’s a Democrat in the White House. No wonder they work so hard to elect Democrats! You would, too, if it meant a paid vacation for the better part of the next decade.

I don’t know if this Michael Flynn thing is a legitimate scandal or not. All we know at the moment is that, shortly before Trump took office, Flynn spoke to the Russian ambassador about the sanctions Obama had levied against them. I don’t see that alone as some great crime. More importantly, the FBI doesn’t see it as a crime, which is why they aren’t going to prosecute. The fact that Flynn lied to everyone makes it a bigger problem, and justified his ouster from the Administration.

None of this, as far as we know, rises anywhere even close to the level of an impeachable offense on Trump’s part. But the media is, of course, trying to connect enough dots to make it what they want it to be (which, by the way, is not how investigative journalism is supposed to work). The New York Times had a bombshell report last night revealing that people in Trump’s campaign had contact with people in Russian intelligence over the past several months. What’s not clear is who talked to who, or what about, or whether the people in Trump’s campaign knew the other people were Russian intelligence, or whether Trump knew this was going on, or whether anything remotely illegal was done or said, or anything else. Some folks talked to some folks. That’s about the extent of the story at this point. In other words, there isn’t a story. And whatever incomplete story we have, we only have because members of the intelligence community are in a state of outright mutiny.

As far as we know right now, the only real criminals here are the intelligence officials who’ve been leaking classified information from clandestinely recorded telephone conversations to the media in hopes of sabotaging a sitting president. That is a crime, a scandal, and it has the makings of a true constitutional crisis. But the media isn’t interested in running that angle down. They’re only interested in nailing the president for corruption, which is an interest they only just developed.

Look, if Trump is ever guilty of real abuses of power, real corruption, real scandal, I will be the first to call for his head, metaphorically. And I don’t think a Trump scandal is mitigated or made less important or more acceptable by the fact that Obama also had scandals. I’m not going to shout “But Obama!” in order to bail Trump out of whatever trouble he may bring upon himself. Leftists spent eight years shouting “But Bush” for Obama’s sake, and I don’t intend to adopt that strategy. But the fact is that Obama did have scandals — real scandals, terrible scandals, scandalous scandals — and, in the interest of truth, we can’t allow the Left to stand right in front of us and rewrite history on the fly. The truth matters.

I say it again: The truth matters.

The truth matters. It matters now just as it mattered for the past eight years. So when Dan Rather claims that Trump may already be guilty of the biggest political scandal in his lifetime, and the New York Times insists that Obama had a scandal free White House, and USA Today along with many other outlets echo that absolutely ridiculous assertion, it behooves those of us who value the truth to calmly respond: UM, WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU PEOPLE TALKING ABOUT?

I don’t know what the future holds. Perhaps Trump will indeed eventually own the biggest political scandal in modern history, but in order to achieve that feat, he’s got a lot of work to do. He’s not there yet. Not anywhere close.

Despite what our news media says as it awakens from a coma, Flynn’s conversation with a Russian ambassador is not a bigger scandal than Obama targeting his political opponents with the IRS.

It’s not bigger than …

READ THE REST @

http://www.theblaze.com/contributions/matt-walsh-if-you-just-started-caring-about-political-scandals-again-youre-a-brazen-hypocrite/

3 Comments

Filed under Matt Walsh, Media Bias

Yo, Lefties. Do NOT presume to lecture me about ethics.

Cuz you have NO moral ground upon which to stand.

rights-for-all

Every argument [the Left makes] in favor of unfettered immigration applies even more directly to the unborn. Their position on illegal aliens and refugees is, after all, an ethical position. They appeal almost entirely to morality, dismissing with contempt practical concerns like security and sovereignty. They say that these people — illegal aliens, refugees — are human beings and as such they deserve to be treated with respect (which is true). They say that it is our responsibility as citizens to deal with whatever inconvenience or burden caused by their presence. Their right to enter our country supersedes our own concerns (which is definitely not true).

” And yet the same people who make this argument will utterly reject the exact same argument as it pertains to children. They deny that parents have any moral obligation to their unborn children. They deny that children have any right whatsoever to enter the world. They proclaim that the inconvenience caused by a child’s presence supersedes his right to exist. In other words, they say that an American citizen has a GREATER responsibility to an immigrant from Mexico or a refugee from Syria than to her own child.

– Matt Walsh

Sources:

March for Life sign

http://www.theblaze.com/podcasts/matt-walsh-if-we-call-unborn-babies-fetal-refugees-would-leftists-care-about-them/

CLICK ON THE TITLE TO GET TO MORE CONTENT IN THE COMMENTS SECTION!

1 Comment

Filed under Human Rights, Immigration, Leftism, Life Issues, Matt Walsh

Protest or Nihilism?

2017_02-01-uc-berkley-riot

Feb 2, 2017 Commentary by Matt Walsh: 

A word about last night.

As you probably heard, a riot broke out on the campus of UC Berkeley ostensibly because Milo Yionnapoulos was scheduled to give a speech. Fires were started. Rocks and bricks were thrown. Buildings and trees were burned (in the most environmentally conscious way, of course). Innocent bystanders were attacked, punched, pepper sprayed, and beaten unconscious. Businesses were destroyed. The usual drill. The Left simply expressed itself the only way it knows how.

The media has, as always, implicitly encouraged the violence and chaos by lending it the more noble title of “protest.” These concerned students were “protesting” a guy’s opinions by vandalizing banks and assaulting random women, they tell us. Which is like “protesting” a speeding ticket by shooting your neighbor’s cat.

No, these are not protests. Frankly, I don’t even believe that these people were all that upset about Milo, just as I didn’t believe that the thugs looting convenience stores in Ferguson were all that upset about Michael Brown getting shot. I think what we’re seeing here is nihilism. It’s not that they care too much or care in the wrong way, but that they don’t care at all. About anything. They’re just bored, empty, and filled with more hatred than they know how to contain.

If this was truly a “protest” against Milo, they would have protested by doing… nothing. Even the dimmest bulb in that crowd must realize that they’re giving Milo everything he wants by reacting this way. He gets media attention, he sells books, and all of his points about them are proven. So, if they really wanted to hurt him, they would have yawned and gone about their day. Paid him no attention. Rioting over a speaker on your campus is the absolute best thing that could happen to that speaker. The worst would be sparse attendance and bored expressions.

I know I’m not revealing some deeply hidden truth. Everyone knows this. So why did they go out and do everything they could to ensure that the person they hated would win the day and his message would be amplified? Because they’re violent, aimless, thugs and they just felt like burning stuff. Don’t dignify this lunacy by calling it a protest. Don’t even dignify it by lecturing them about proper ways to vent their anger.

“Angry” people don’t destroy private property for no reason. That’s what attention starved punks do. And Leftism has created a whole generation of them because Leftism is, at its root, hollow, confused, self-contradictory, and spiteful. This is what happens when a generation is raised in that kind of ideology. They start fires just to start them, because they don’t know what else to do. It’s really as simple as that.

Source:

1 Comment

Filed under Leftism, Matt Walsh, Milo Yiannopoulos

Let’s not insult women by calling that shameful nonsense a “Women’s March”

By Matt Walsh.

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.

32460766305_b9691bf2d1_z-554x413

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.

32072001620_648292db09_z-554x414

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.

[continue reading here]

4 Comments

Filed under Abortion, Feminism, Matt Walsh

Where?!

From Matt Walsh:

I challenge anyone at the “Women’s March” or anyone who supports it to name one single right men have in America that women do not. Just one. Just one right. Give me just one right that you lack which may justify all of this hyperventilating.

If you turn the question around, I can, in fact, name some rights women have in America that men do not. At least one, anyway, but it’s a big one: Women have the right to kill their kids. Now, that’s not a positive right, not a good right, not an actual right that springs from Natural Law, but it is a legal entitlement given only to women.

So where do women lack rights? Yes, things like rape and domestic violence occur all too often, but these aren’t examples of legal persecutions. Violence against women is illegal. If the perpetrators are not always punished it’s because these crimes often prove difficult to investigate and prosecute. It isn’t because the court system or society are somehow OK with abuse so long as women are the victims.

And if these sorts of things are examples of women not having rights, then we must conclude that men lack rights because they fare significantly worse in our school system and in our court system. Our prisons are stocked mostly with men. Most victims of violent crime are men. Most homicides are men. Most robbery victims are men. So on and so on. Men are more likely to commit suicide, abuse drugs, drop out of school, etc. Men are more likely to get injured on the job because men do most of the dirty and dangerous work in America. Not because they alone have a right to do it but because women choose not to do it. The point is, men face their own obstacles and suffer their own abuses apart from what the law stipulates.

What I’m trying to figure out, again, is where women are being INSTITUTIONALLY or LEGALLY victimized or disenfranchised or put upon or deprived of their constitutional rights in America. Where is this happening? Seriously, where?

There are, I admit, a few places where you may see something like this happening. The abortion industry and the porn industry come immediately to mind. But the feminists who do most of the complaining usually give those industries a pass. So what’s left?

Any ideas?

Anything?

Anyone?

Hello?

Hello?

Yeah, that’s what I thought.

JUST IN CASE any of all y’all are tempted to say “gender wage gap,” let me please remind you that this has been debunked over and over and over.  It simply does not exist.

The Myth of the Gender Wage Gap [5:54]

Comments Off on Where?!

Filed under Abortion, Feminism, Gender, Matt Walsh