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 @
Category Archives: Matt Walsh
Cuz you have NO moral ground upon which to stand.
“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
March for Life sign
CLICK ON THE TITLE TO GET TO MORE CONTENT IN THE COMMENTS SECTION!
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.
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.
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.
[continue reading here]
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?
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]
Matt Walsh writes:
If somehow you need a reminder as to how scummy and vile our news media actually is, all you have to do is look at how they treat the March For Life.
The March For Life is the largest annual human rights demonstration in the history of the world. It attracts hundreds of thousands of people in the dead of winter every year. Every. Single. Year. And they are marching right through the heart of DC, literally where the media lives, speaking out about one of the most divisive and contentious issues of our time. To call that “newsworthy” is a considerable understatement.
But the media goes into almost complete blackout mode. They either ignore it entirely or report on it briefly, as an aside, while blatantly lying about the number of people in attendance. The media is so terrified of the March For Life, and harbors such utter disdain for the point of view it represents, that they cannot even bring themselves to refer to it by its name. As you can see in the example below, they will only call it “the anti-abortion march.”
This has all been put into even starker contrast in 2017 because it just so happens that the week before there will be a pro-abortion “Women’s March” on Washington. Even though this march will have a significantly smaller turnout, the media has been reporting about it ad naseum. One can only imagine how much it will dominate the coverage on the actual day. And, as you can see, the very same newspapers that refuse to refer to the March For Life by name have no problem calling the pro-abortion march by its official (and misleading) title.
These people are liars and moral cowards. They deserve all of the contempt Trump shows them, and then some. And if you ever begin to doubt that, just turn on your TV on January 27, the day of the March For Life, and notice what they’re saying about the largest political demonstration of the year: nothing.
I am absolutely sickened by the statements of some Democrats concerning the vicious torture of a disabled white guy by four blacks yelling “F*** whites.” One thing I’ve heard is, “It’s not a hate crime.” Seriously? What moral universe do you live in?!
Anyway, this reinforces for me the idea that “hate crime” is a stupid idea in the first place. A lawyer explained to me that it was bad law, because it attempted to criminalize thought. Torture is already a crime. Four people torturing a disabled guy is a truly heinous crime. It should not matter to the law why they did it. It should only matter IF they did it.
If a jury rules them guilty, then their motives can and probably should influence the judge’s decision re: sentencing. But that’s all.
Matt Walsh had this to say on Facebook:
“A group of black people kidnapped and tortured a disabled white man and broadcast the crime on Facebook Live.
“Now can you imagine, for a moment, what would happen if a group of white people recorded themselves torturing a black man, beating him, cutting off pieces of his hair, and dragging him around by his neck while screaming anti-black obscenities? We all know what would happen. It would be a GLOBAL news story. There would be riots in the street right now, as we speak. It would lead every news broadcast on every national and local channel. The president would issue a statement from the Rose Garden. But it happens to a white a person and what do you hear? Nothing.
“Even the Chicago police have tried to play down the incident, describing it as a “battery.” It’s not a battery. It’s kidnapping, torture, and a federal hate crime according to the law.
“See, it’s not accurate to say that there is a double standard here. In order for there to be a double standard, there would have to be two actual standards. But it appears that racial minorities of the correct political persuasion are held to no standard at all, whatsoever, while white people of the incorrect persuasion are held only to this simple standard: everything they do and say is wrong and also racist. And if one of them gets bound, gagged, and brutalized, well, it’s nothing but a minor incident of battery. No reason to even discuss it.
“The whole thing is just despicable.
“There has been an attempt by some people to write this incident off as an aberration. But it’s not an aberration. The thugs who kidnapped, tortured, and scalped a disabled white teen were acting with the same disregard for human life that led to 700 murders in Chicago last year.
“The crisis in our inner cities is that so many kids are growing up without any form of moral guidance whatsoever. The result, ultimately, is that their consciences aren’t formed, and an unformed conscience is a dead conscience.
“That’s what I saw in that horrible video: young adults with absolutely no moral compass at all. People who delight in evil for evil’s sake. Utter indifference. And utter indifference, as we’ve seen, is even worse than mere hate.”
Matt Walsh posted this on Facebook. He makes some good points.
I’m not going to spend the next four years justifying everything the president says and does just because he’s a Republican. I know this will put me in a minority among conservatives, but I intend to hold Trump accountable same as I would any other politician.
On that note, let’s look at this tweet the President Elect sent out today. Two problems:
First, it’s an abject lie. There is no evidence that “millions” of votes were made illegally. The future president is making wild, conspiratorial claims without the slightest concern about whether those claims have any relation to the truth whatsoever. I imagine him employing this same tactic as president when it comes to matters of national security, where lives are at stake, and it gives me a very queasy feeling.
Second, the Clinton camp is trying to get a recount in several states. The man who WON has now JUSTIFIED those recounts by claiming that millions of votes were illegitimate. By his own words, a national recount of every vote must be conducted. That’s according to Trump himself. The guy who won. The guy who won just questioned the legitimacy of his own win.
And why? Because of his pride. Even though he won, he can’t stomach the idea that fewer people voted for him than Clinton. So, just to service his damned vanity, he undermined his own win and called into question the authenticity of a voting process that just resulted in him becoming president.
We are in for four years of this crap, folks. And I’m not going to play along. I refuse. Trump is wrong here. He’s lying. He’s being a prideful, reckless idiot and he deserves to be raked over the coals for it. And those who defend him on this deserve to be criticized right along with him.
I opposed The Donald for a long time primarily because he struck me as an Obama in White Face. Unqualified. Narcissistic. I think he’s made a lot of progress growing into the job and I pray that as he gets more of his team assembled, they (and his lovely, level-headed wife) will teach him to rein in the campaign rhetoric. It’s not appropriate coming from a president.
But really … wouldn’t it be sweet if a Democrat-demanded recount uncovered evidence of Democrat voter fraud? ::snork::