If you&#8217;ve been paying attention lately, you&#8217;ve most likely seen how extreme the leftist agenda has become — women bragging about abortions, parents forcing children into sex changes, people applauding &#8220;drag kids,&#8221; and on and on. Matt Walsh doesn&#8217;t shy away from these topics. This collection features his hottest takes on today&#8217;s cultural, religious, and political issues.

matt-walsh-collection-compressed

The New York Post announces the big news: a baby with three dads. This is supposed to be a historic first. A major milestone in human history. Here’s the Post with the details: 
<blockquote>A gay, polyamorous California throuple made history in 2017 when they became the first family in the state to list three parents on a birth certificate. Their reproductive journey and legal battle to become fathers to Piper, now 3, is detailed in “Three Dads and a Baby”, written by one of her dads, Dr. Ian Jenkins. Jenkins and his partners, Jeremy Hodges and Dr. Alan Mayfield, don’t see their family — which now also includes their son, Parker, 1 — as unusual.</blockquote>
Of course, it is by definition &#8220;unusual.&#8221; It is not possible for a thing to “make history” and not be unusual.
More from the Post: 
<blockquote>Jenkins met Mayfield, a psychiatrist, while they were completing their medical residencies in Boston. The two were together for eight years when Hodges, who works at a zoo hospital, came into the picture. Although their relationship with Hodges began as a friendship, things quickly turned romantic. After five years of throuple-dom, the trio started seriously discussing parenthood when friends offered to donate their leftover embryos to them.</blockquote>
Leftover embryos. Isn’t it inspiring to hear human life referred to this way — like it’s a slab of meatloaf sitting in a Tupperware container in the fridge? Unfortunately, the “leftover embryo” — i.e. human life — wasn’t viable. The next attempt also didn’t take. Finally, a helpful friend gave them some of her eggs, which were fertilized in a laboratory and implanted in the uterus of another friend. Meanwhile some fancy legal footwork was performed with the help of lawyers and tens of thousands of dollars of legal fees. And then, presto chango, just like magic, a child with “three dads” was born.
If you are feeling not-terribly-excited about our new and improved society where babies can have three dads, that’s because you are a normal and sane person. Sure, the men feel great about their Dad Trio, but their emotional needs aren’t the primary concern of normal and sane people. We are worried about the children, who are being regarded more as fashion accessories than human beings. To respect their humanity is to acknowledge that children need mothers, too. It is an absurd idea that the role of the mother can be adequately replaced just by adding more dads into the equation.
But if adding dads is the plan, why stop at three? Why not four dads, five dads, six dads, seven (this is beginning to sound like a creepy children’s book that I’m sure someone will eventually write)? It is not a rhetorical question. This is something we really need to think about because the floodgates are officially open and have been for some time. Once society moves away from the nuclear family — not just in practice, but in a categorial denial that it is the ideal family structure — then there is no remaining boundary, no limiting principle. This is where the so-called slippery slope argument comes in, and it’s why those who warn about slippery slopes are usually proven correct, even as the Left guffaws at the notion that perhaps sometimes one thing might lead to another.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Q5xewyvs60U" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
The point with the slippery slope is that when you tear down a boundary without any idea as to where to rebuild it, or get rid of a word’s definition without even a suggestion as to what it’s new definition ought to be, then you have, obviously, and it would seem by design, sent this now boundary-less, undefinable thing tumbling into insanity and incoherence. You haven’t actually moved the boundary or changed the definition of the thing but simply destroyed it.
As I have observed many times, this is the process playing out right now with respect to gender. We are told that the word “woman” no longer means “adult human female,” which is what it had meant since the dawn of time. So what does it mean? If not that, then what? Those who seek to erase the word’s “traditional” definition have, apparently, no plans for giving it a new one. They do not seek to promote a new or expanded concept of womanhood, but to annihilate the concept itself. It is not a slope but a free-fall plunge into obliteration.
Each new stage in our moral and logical descent is predictable and inevitable. If our biological identity has no meaning, and can be changed on a whim, then the same will be done with age, race, and every other aspect of our identity. It is not a question of “if.” It will happen, and is already beginning to happen, because there is no reason why it would not happen now that the precedent has been set and the logical and moral barriers preventing it from happening have been removed. 
And so with marriage and family. We have seen three men call themselves “dad.” Soon that will not be the strangest combination. Give it enough time and even the self-professed “conservatives” will be defending the three dad concept as valid and equal, while offering polite pushback to the newer “four dads and three sex robots” family units. This is the path we put ourselves on when we moved away from the mother-father nuclear family structure. The truth is that every child needs and deserves both a mother and a father. We preserve that, or preserve nothing. There is no middle option. You either defend it with all you have, never giving it an inch, or you surrender and let it have its way with the culture. We have made our choice. We chose poorly. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

GERMANY-BRITAIN-WWII-BOMB

WALSH: A Child Is Born With Three Legal ‘Dads,’ Proving Yet Again That The Slippery Slope Is Real

LGBTQ

Woke Culture

More than once over the past several months I have predicted that we would see a skyrocketing rise in ADHD diagnoses, as millions of children are forced to sit and stare at screens all day in lieu of receiving a real education. Usually I quite enjoy saying “I told you so.” This is not one of those times. This week NBC News <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/tech-news/great-attention-deficit-more-parents-seek-adhd-diagnosis-drugs-kids-n1257660">reported</a>, right on schedule, that ADHD diagnoses have indeed “skyrocketed” during the pandemic.
From the article:
<blockquote>Susan McLaughlin&#8217;s 12-year-old daughter, Isabela, was a straight-A student before the <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/health/coronavirus">pandemic</a>. Isabela, who lives in a suburb of Columbus, Ohio, excelled at science and math and was already getting high school credit for algebra.
But when her school shut down in March and classes shifted to Zoom, Isabela&#8217;s grades took a nosedive. She signed on for her <a href="https://www.nbcnews.com/news/education/remote-students-are-more-stressed-their-peers-classroom-study-shows-n1257632">virtual class </a>from a desk piled high with books, papers and stuffed animals and then spent hours trying to clean her room instead of focusing on schoolwork. She found herself &#8220;paralyzed&#8221; by assignments, McLaughlin said, but she wouldn&#8217;t tell the teacher over email that she was struggling, as she would have done in person.
&#8220;It was meltdown after meltdown after meltdown,&#8221; said McLaughlin, 53, a mother of three from Delaware, Ohio, who works in a high school with chronically truant children…. McLaughlin spent months trying to bring more structure to Isabela&#8217;s day by writing lists, schedules, timelines and checkboxes. But as someone who was diagnosed with attention deficit hyperactivity disorder herself a decade ago, McLaughlin realized that she was seeing the same behaviors in Isabela. She thought, &#8220;I&#8217;ve got to nip this in the bud.&#8221;
Isabela is being evaluated by a psychiatrist, a process that takes several hours and requires her teachers to fill out questionnaires about her behavior. McLaughlin hopes that with an ADHD diagnosis, Isabela will be able to get a prescription for a stimulant medication — such as Ritalin, Adderall or Vyvanse — to alleviate her symptoms.</blockquote>
How strange. The child was a straight A student for most of her academic career. Then, upon finding herself confined to her house, put in front of a computer, and asked to listen to lectures from a talking head on a screen, suddenly she developed learning problems. It does not take a very perceptive person to detect a potential source of her difficulties that has nothing to do with mental disorders.
More from NBC News:
<blockquote>Two dozen parents, pediatricians, psychiatrists, psychologists and researchers all described a crisis among children suffering from inattention and tanking school performance.
Data from specialists involved with diagnosing and treating ADHD show just how much parents are struggling to get help: They are flooding an ADHD support line with questions, and ADHD diagnoses and prescriptions for related medications have soared…
The number of parents calling a help line set up by CHADD (Children and Adults with Attention-Deficit/Hyperactivity Disorder), a nonprofit that supports people with ADHD, rose by 62 percent since the pandemic started, the organization said. Traffic to its website last year grew by 77 percent compared to 2019…
Athenahealth, a technology company that creates practice management software for health care providers, <a href="https://www.athenahealth.com/knowledge-hub/clinical-trends/more-pediatricians-talking-about-ADHD-during-COVID-19">published research in May</a>, drawing on data from its customers, that showed an increase in patients ages 13 to 17 who received new diagnoses of ADHD. From the week of March 9 to the week of March 30, the proportion of visits by teenagers that involved first-time ADHD diagnoses rose by 67 percent. There was a similar spike among teenagers — particularly boys — who received prescriptions for ADHD medicines for the first time.</blockquote>
I hope it is clear to most people that the rise in &#8220;ADHD&#8221; and the imposition of lockdowns across the country is not a coincidence. Correlation does not always equal causation, but in this case, it obviously does. How could our children not have trouble with “inattention” and “hyperactivity” when they are cooped up, deprived of their normal physical outlets like sports and other activities, and forced to spend even more time staring at screens than they did before the lockdowns?
I can say that I suffer from quite a bit of inattention when I’m made to sit through even a 15-minute Zoom meeting. I can’t imagine doing it every day for hours — and being 12-years-old on top of it. These kids may be exhibiting hyperactivity and deficits of attention, but to call it a disorder, given the context, is the height of absurdity and cruelty.
There is a disorder here, but it&#8217;s not in our children&#8217;s brains. It is disordered to lock kids inside their homes because of a virus that statistically poses little risk to them. It is disordered to replace a schoolhouse with a laptop. It is disordered to expect children to seamlessly adapt to the unnatural and oppressive situation that we have thrown them into. It is disordered to put caution tape around playgrounds and muzzles over the mouths of perfectly healthy children. The kids who struggle in this disordered environment, and rebel against it, are healthy. Indeed, I would be much more concerned about the child who is happy to replace natural, in-person human interaction with teleconferences.
Of course, this logic applies just as much to our pre-pandemic society. We had already been in the midst of a rapid increase in ADHD diagnoses. Millions of children were already being fed psychotropic drugs to treat &#8220;mental disorders&#8221; that manifest as nothing more than a difficulty engaging and focusing where engaging and focusing would be difficult for most people. &#8220;Distance learning&#8221; is worse than what it replaced, but what it replaced was deeply flawed in its own right. Kids were expected to sit in a classroom with 30 classmates for six or seven hours a day, listening to lectures, filling out worksheets, and taking tests based mostly on the memorization. Some children may thrive in such a system, but many millions do not. The system&#8217;s solution is to call the troublemakers &#8220;disordered&#8221; and sedate them with drugs. Once again, the same theme emerges: a disordered system projects its failures onto our children.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/pIYRtGTyKAA" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Online Learning

WALSH: Kids Are Struggling To Focus During Online School. Now They’re Being Diagnosed With ADHD. This Is Cruel.

Coronavirus

COVID-19

Readers Pass

Rush Limbaugh died on Wednesday at the age of 70. Though his lung cancer diagnosis had been publicly known for months, still his death managed to seem somehow shocking. That is how it always feels when a man of great consequence and importance reaches the end of his time here on Earth. And that is the one thing that nobody can deny about Rush’s life: it was important, consequential. He was a pioneer, a legend, and he changed the country in ways that few media figures ever have, ever could or ever will. 
Anyone who doubts Rush’s profound importance need only take a glance at social media. There they will find many people paying grateful tribute to the radio icon and talking about all the ways that they were personally influenced and motivated by him, but another, and perhaps more profound, indication of Rush’s importance is that all of the worst people in our country, many of the most vile and disgusting ghouls that our culture has produced, have come out to celebrate his death openly and dance on his grave without shame. I will not amplify any of them individually by going through a list of all of the filthy things they’re spewing. Suffice it to say that the phrases “rot in hell” and “rest in piss” were trending minutes after news broke about Limbaugh’s passing. These are not just random anonymous internet trolls, but also some of the most prominent left-wing voices who, when they’re not laughing at a man for dying of cancer, are busy lecturing us about the need for civil political discourse. 
Media outlets showed a similar lack of restraint. Rolling Stone’s headline read: “Rush Limbaugh, Right-Wing Radio Host Who Trafficked in Bigotry and Cruelty, Dead at 70.” The Daily Beast was only slightly more subtle: “Rush Limbaugh, the Human Megaphone Who Hijacked the GOP, Dead at 70.” Of course, the fever swamps of the left-wing blogosphere weren’t subtle at all. Jezebel’s top headline said simply: “Good Riddance.” In other words, the media and the Left have showed the grace, dignity and compassion you’d expect. Which is to say, none at all.
Rush deserved better than to have the story of his death be a story about the jerks who rejoice over it, but it is worth thinking about this now-familiar routine. We live in a country where this sort of thing happens so automatically that we aren’t shocked anymore by it. When a famous person of a certain ideological persuasion dies, we expect that “Satan” and “Hell” will be trending on Twitter because of all of the users openly fantasizing about their political enemy roasting eternally in a place that they otherwise claim is fictional. And that’s exactly what happened in this case, right on cue. But why does it happen? It seems insufficient to chalk it up to mere “partisanship” or “divisiveness.” What, then, is really fueling it? 
To answer that question, the first thing we have to establish is that this truly is a left wing phenomenon. I am not claiming that nobody on the Right did any football spiking or made any jokes about the death of Ruth Bader Ginsburg, or some other recently deceased liberal. What I’m claiming is that those reactions were representative of a definite minority. There has not been a time, to my memory, when “rest in piss,” or anything like it, trended in reaction to a famous leftist’s death. For the most part, RBG was eulogized respectfully by both right and left. There are notable exceptions, but those exceptions are still exceptions. On the Left, the respectful eulogy of political opponents has become the exception. Shameless celebration is the norm. 
What drives it is the same thing that drives Cancel Culture, to a great extent. It is the belief — again, not totally unique to the Left, but more prevalent by a wide margin — that people with differing views are bad people. Not just that they have bad opinions, but that they are bad themselves, deep down in their souls. The consequence of casting every political disagreement, every alternate opinion, every opposing argument, as racism or sexism or homophobia or whatever other -ism or -phobia, is that those who are conditioned into this way of thinking will come to believe that their opponents are truly and irredeemably evil.
It is easy to make a joke about the fact that the Left calls everything and everyone bigoted, but the not-so-funny reality is that a great many Americans, especially younger Americans, really believe this framing. They have taken it to heart. It is the lens through which they view reality. They look out at the world and see millions of wicked, worthless, racist, knuckle-dragging subhumans staring back at them. They do not recognize the humanity of their opponents. They certainly cannot see any goodness or virtue in them.
The reaction to Rush Limbaugh’s death is not happening in a vacuum, and it is not a matter of random, anonymous trolls simply trying to get a rise out of people. It is a reflection of our culture, and of the ideological divide, and of how deep that divide is, and of the pure, unbridled hatred that has helped to carve it.
Rush was the relentless target of this equally relentless hatred for much of the past four decades. As I’m sure he expected, that has not changed with his death. The man achieved many great things, and made his mark in countless and incalculable ways, but one of the deepest testaments to his life is that these sorts of people are rejoicing over its end. May we all hope to make such an impact with our lives. 
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Rush Limbaugh

WALSH: Many On The Left Truly Want Their Political Opponents To Die. The Reaction To Limbaugh’s Passing Proves That.

If you, like me, have never watched The Bachelor and are still a little unclear on what exactly it is, and are sure only that, whatever it is, it’s certainly entertainment for people with IQs not much higher than that of, say, a squid, then you may have missed the latest controversy surrounding the show. I bring it to your attention now, as it was brought to mine, only because it is so perfectly emblematic of our culture generally.
Rachael Kirkconnell is a contestant on the latest season of the reality show, vying for the heart of one Matt James. It should be noted that Matt James is a black man. His race ought not be relevant, but the &#8220;racial progress&#8221; of the last several years means that race is always made to be relevant even when it shouldn&#8217;t be. It came out recently that Rachael, who is competing to marry a black man, has a history of allegedly racist behavior. The principle example of this sort of behavior is an antebellum-themed frat party she attended in 2018. Pictures of this gathering surfaced, revealing the contestant decked out in a white robe with a pointy hood, lighting a cross on fire. Just kidding, of course. She was wearing a frilly pink dress and taking selfies with other college girls also wearing frilly dresses. That&#8217;s it. That&#8217;s the &#8220;racism.&#8221;
Antebellum, as it turns out, is not Latin for “racist” or “Klan member.” It actually means, literally, &#8220;before the war&#8221; &#8212; the Civil War, in this case. Yes, the south had slavery before the Civil War, as did a significant portion of the rest of the globe. But when college kids go to an antebellum party, their motivation is only to wear fun outfits and drink copious amounts of alcohol, not to celebrate slavery or advocate for the return of Jim Crow laws. This is clear to any reasonable person, but we are running a shortage of those kinds of people these days.
So, the controversy raged. Internet sleuths dredged up other suspicious online activities. They found that she had &#8220;liked&#8221; some mildly edgy Instagram posts. They dug up rumors from her time in grade school. The hunt was on. They were on the trail of another racist, or at least someone they could pretend is racist. Kirkconnel issued her groveling, begging apologies, and pleaded that she might be forgiven for the grave harm she’d caused by wearing a dress to a party three years ago. But, as always, it was all for nothing. Forgiveness was not on offer. It&#8217;s not a part of the &#8220;being canceled&#8221; bargain.
<div id="attachment_190697" style="width: 1210px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img aria-describedby="caption-attachment-190697" decoding="async" loading="lazy" class="wp-image-190697" src="https://www.dailywire.com/wp-content/uploads/2021/02/Bachelor.jpg" alt="General views of Matt James 'the Bachelor' billboard in West Hollywood on December 24, 2020 in Los Angeles, California. (Photo by fupp/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images)" width="1200" height="776" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/Bachelor.jpg 2000w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/Bachelor-300x194.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/Bachelor-891x576.jpg 891w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/Bachelor-768x497.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2021/02/Bachelor-1536x993.jpg 1536w" sizes="(max-width: 1200px) 100vw, 1200px" />Photo by fupp/Bauer-Griffin/GC Images</div>
Chris Harrison, the host of The Bachelor, discovered this fact the hard way when he appeared on Extra TV to discuss the controversy. Harrison rambled and beat around the bush quite a bit, but finally settled on the point that Kirkconnel is probably not a total dirtbag and we should give her a little grace. He tried very hard to straddle the line between being a voice of reason and an enabling pushover. This is a losing game. Through the ten-minute <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9hmY1gSAuRk">segment</a> he used the phrase &#8220;I don&#8217;t know&#8221; about a half dozen times. He advocated for forgiveness but made sure to clarify repeatedly that he&#8217;s not defending Kirkconnel&#8217;s actions and for all he knows she really is a knuckle-dragging bigot. It was about as mild and circumspect as a repudiation of cancel culture could possibly be. But it was still enough to ruin his career.
The woke mob turned their sights from Kirkconnel to Harrison. He was accused of minimizing and excusing racism. The interviewer, Rachel Lindsay, threw him directly under the bus, claiming that he had unfairly wielded his &#8220;privilege&#8221; in the interview. So did a collection of The Bachelor contestant, issuing a joint statement &#8220;denouncing racist behavior.&#8221; Even Harrison&#8217;s girlfriend publicly condemned him for &#8220;defending racism.&#8221; The besieged reality TV host then made his own embarrassing and groveling apologies, which were also ignored, before finally announcing that he was stepping down from his position. All for advocating forgiveness. These days, forgiveness is a sin in itself.
The woke police — as Chris Harrison called them in that interview, back when he was still pretending to have some semblance of a spine — are looking for any opportunity to impose their will and punish those who deviate from the path they have prescribed for our lives. That explains the seemingly weird fact that often those who defend the canceled person will get canceled even harder than the original victim. In the eyes of the leftist mob, the defender is making a more direct and explicit attack on their authority, and thus is an even greater threat. Everyone in Harrison&#8217;s orbit seems to understand this fact, which is why they all tossed him out into the cold without hesitation. They have received, loud and clear, the message that the mob wants to send. That message is not, &#8220;Racism is bad,&#8221; but, &#8220;Do not defy us, for we will destroy you.&#8221;
I wrote last week that the woke mob will take your scalp and nail it to the wall as a trophy. That’s not quite correct. It’s truer to say they will take your head and put it on a pike on the outskirts of town, as a warning to any other challengers. Their goal — their only goal — is to impose their cultural will by making an example of anyone who defies them, however slight that defiance might be. So far, their approach has been extremely effective. To stand against them requires much more courage and backbone than the host of The Bachelor possesses. No surprise there, I suppose.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/2PvkyYiz8wI?start=139" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Chris Harrison

WALSH: ‘Bachelor’ Host Called Racist For Advocating Grace And Forgiveness. Now He’s Stepping Down From The Show.

Cancel Culture

The Bachelor

We have been reminded repeatedly that the riot in DC on January 6th was “<a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2021/02/09/trump-impeachment-trial-live-updates-stream.html">deadly</a>” and “<a href="https://www.clickondetroit.com/news/local/2021/01/10/deadly-siege-on-us-capitol-building-reignites-gun-debate-in-michigan/">fatal</a>” and “<a href="https://thehill.com/homenews/house/533959-tensions-flare-between-house-republicans-capitol-police-over-metal-detectors">lethal</a>,” as it has been variously described. The point is being hammered with extra enthusiasm during the Senate impeachment trial of Donald Trump this week. It is a point the media has cemented in the public consciousness over the course of the last month. Five deaths. That is the number we’ve been given by <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/11/us/who-died-in-capitol-building-attack.html">The New York Times</a> and other legacy outlets. In fact, all in all, a total of seven deaths — four civilians and three police officers — have been tied to the riot.
The odd thing, though, is that most of these deaths are discussed only in the most general and vague terms. We are told that people died, and we are given the approximate alleged context of their deaths, but very little is said about how it happened. But the “how” seems rather important. It is certainly important to the families, who have a right to know exactly how and why their loved ones perished. It is important to the American public, which ought to be given the full truth of an event that has already been used to justify the indefinite militarization of our capital and the impeachment of the former president. And it is important, most of all, because the truth simply matters — particularly about what results in the tragic loss of life. If we are going to be told so often and in such emphatic terms that the riot claimed the lives of five people — or even seven people — then we should also be told how, exactly, that occurred. If the people making the claim don’t themselves know how it occurred, then they should not be making the claim at all. If they do know, and they aren’t telling us, then a whole new realm of problems opens up. 
So, what do we actually know about the often cited body count? Out of seven deaths in some way tied back to the riot, we know that two were suicides in the days and weeks following the chaos. Acting Metropolitan Police Chief Robert Contee said that officers Jeffrey Smith and Howard Liebengood “took their own lives in the aftermath of that battle.” Does that mean that the trauma of the event pushed them over the edge? Did they leave notes or make statements indicating that the riot itself had caused that kind of psychological damage? Or did they have other things going on internally, or in their personal lives, that led to this tragic conclusion? If anyone knows the answers to those questions, they aren’t telling us. All we can say for sure is that two men who were serving in the line of duty during the riot later went on to take their own lives. Anyone who connects these two facts is making an assumption.
As for the civilian deaths tied to the riot, we know their names are: Benjamin Philips, Ashli Babbit, Rosanne Boyland and Kevin Greeson. It was <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/dc-police-chief-3-deaths-fatalities-medical-conditions-us-capitol-riots-2021-1">reported</a> by Chief Contee immediately after the riot that three of the victims — Philips, Boyland and Greeson — died from “separate medical emergencies.” Kevin Greeson’s family later <a href="https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-9152849/Trump-supporter-Kevin-Greeson-died-Capitol-riots-Obama-fan.html">confirmed</a> that he had high blood pressure and died of a heart attack “in the midst of the excitement.” Even fewer <a href="https://fusion.inquirer.com/news/pennsylvania/washington-protest-trump-capitol-pennsylvania-ben-philips-20210107.html">details</a> have been given about Benjamin Phillips’s death, but we do know that he suffered a stroke at some point on January 6th and later died in the hospital. 
For Rosanne Boyland, the story is murkier. It was initially reported by the media that Boyland was “<a href="https://nypost.com/2021/01/08/rosanne-boyland-woman-killed-in-dc-riots-was-trampled-by-crowd/">trampled to death</a>.” This would certainly qualify, unquestionably, as a death caused directly by the riot. Yet a more in-depth <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2021/01/15/us/rosanne-boyland-capitol-riot-death.html">examination</a> of her death in the New York Times shows that she collapsed while amid a flood of people near the Capitol building. Others in the crowd tried to revive her with CPR, but their efforts were unsuccessful. The chief medical examiner of Washington DC — as of January 21st anyway — said that her cause of death is “pending.” Was she indeed trampled to death? Did she suffer some other medical emergency? Did she have trouble breathing because of the crush of people? Thus far, we are left only to speculate.
Ashli Babbit is the clearest case of all. She was certainly killed by violence during the riot. But her death was caused by a police officer who fatally shot her while she was trying to climb through a broken door inside the Capitol building. Babbit was unarmed.
That leaves Officer Brian Sicknick. In many ways, the circumstances surrounding his death are the murkiest of all. Immediately following the riot, the Capitol Police issued a statement saying that an officer had “passed away due to injuries sustained while on duty.” We were told that “he returned to his division office and collapsed,” and then was taken to a hospital where he died. The Times and others reported that the officer, soon identified as Brian Sicknick, was bludgeoned with a fire extinguisher by someone — or multiple people — in the crowd. This is the story that stuck. As prominent “human rights lawyer” Qassim Rashid <a href="https://twitter.com/QasimRashid/status/1347624976631914497">put it</a> on January 8, Sicknick “was beat to death by a fire extinguisher to his skull by right wing terrorists.” 
The problem with this established narrative is that it doesn’t appear to be true. Little has been officially revealed about Sicknick’s cause of death, and the autopsy results, for whatever reason, have not been made available to the public. But in a report that did not receive much attention or emphasis last week, CNN <a href="https://kslnewsradio.com/1942593/investigators-struggle-to-build-murder-case-in-death-of-us-capitol-police-officer-brian-sicknick/">revealed</a>:
<blockquote>Investigators are struggling to build a federal murder case regarding fallen US Capitol Police officer <a href="http://www.cnn.com/2021/02/01/opinions/brian-sicknick-honor-capitol-moskos/index.html">Brian Sicknick,</a> vexed by a lack of evidence that could prove someone caused his death as he defended the Capitol during last month’s insurrection.
Authorities have reviewed video and photographs that show Sicknick engaging with rioters amid the siege but have yet to identify a moment in which he suffered his fatal injuries, law enforcement officials familiar with the matter said…. To date, little information has been shared publicly about the circumstances of the death of the 13-year veteran of the police force, including any findings from an autopsy that was conducted by DC’s medical examiner…
Findings from a medical examiner’s review have not yet been released and authorities have not made any announcements about that ongoing process. According to one law enforcement official, medical examiners did not find signs that the officer sustained any blunt force trauma, so investigators believe that early reports that he was fatally struck by a fire extinguisher are not true. One possibility being considered by investigators is that Sicknick became ill after interacting with a chemical irritant like pepper spray or bear spray that was deployed in the crowd. But investigators reviewing video of the officer’s time around the Capitol haven’t been able to confirm that in tape that has been recovered so far, the official said.
The case could also be complicated if Sicknick had a preexisting medical condition. It could not be learned if he did.</blockquote>
What this all means is that we do not yet know if Sicknick’s death, while obviously tragic no matter what caused it, was the result of any direct action taken by anyone in the crowd. There is, to date, according to these reports, no evidence at all that Sicknick was murdered. There is no evidence — at least none provided to the public — that his death was caused by the riot, even indirectly. All we actually know, all we have been told, is that Officer Sicknick was at the riot and then later died. That is the full extent of the information officially given to the public.
Overall, based on the available evidence, we can say conclusively that one person, Ashli Babbit, was directly killed by violence in the riot. We can say with relative certainly that two others died of medical emergencies stemming from underlying health concerns. That leaves two, Sicknick and Boyland, whose deaths are still a relative mystery &#8212; to the public, anyway. Presumably the autopsy results could lend quite a bit of clarity, but those results are being withheld, for whatever reason. At this point, any claim that five people died because of the riot, or were killed by the riot, or even that five people died in the riot, is based more on speculation than evidence. It is what the social media company and the news media itself would normally call &#8220;misinformation.&#8221; Yet in this case the misinformation is repeated, and allowed to be spread, and hardly anyone stops to question it.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/gTnk37aeEe8?start=135" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Capitol Riot

WALSH: Media Says Capitol Riot Killed Five People. The Truth Is More Complicated.

Media Bias

Morgan Wallen is watching his career implode before his eyes as a consequence of a video that catches the country music star using a racial slur. Wallen and his buddies were laughing and carrying on after returning home from a night of drinking this past weekend. Their antics were loud and disruptive enough to wake the neighbors, one of whom decided to pull out a phone and document the commotion. Unfortunately for Wallen, the camera had been turned on right before he shouted to one of his friends across the street, presumably referring to another friend who was in perhaps an especially drunken state, “take care of this [blank] [n-word].”
It’s clear that Wallen used a word he should not have used. It’s also clear that he didn’t mean for it to be public (though he did shout it in the street, which is not a good way of keeping things private), and he meant it as a joke. Nonetheless, as expected, the penalties have been quite significant. Wallen apologized profusely but that did not stop the inevitable: his record label suspended him, the Academy of Country Music Awards revoked his eligibility, and Cumulus Media, iHeartMedia, and SiriusXM pulled all of his songs from their stations, effectively removing him from the radio altogether. This is the swiftest and harshest backlash we have seen against a star musician in years, even though star musicians do and say objectionable things all the time. 
While Wallen’s star is rapidly plummeting after saying one offensive thing — a thing which, if context matters, was said drunkenly and in jest — another star is ascending again after a minor and temporary dip. The juxtaposition is instructive. Nick Cannon and ViacomCBS have reunited and the production of his VH1 series &#8220;Wild ’N Out&#8221; will resume, following a brief suspension of their relationship following comments Cannon made on his podcast last summer. What provoked the backlash was Cannon’s claim that black people can’t be anti-Semitic because they “are the Semitic people” and “the true Hebrews.” &#8220;It&#8217;s never hate speech, you can&#8217;t be anti-Semitic when we are the Semitic people,&#8221; he said. &#8220;When we are the same people who they want to be. That&#8217;s our birthright. We are the true Hebrews.&#8221; This is what prompted the brief severing of ties with ViacomCBS, and an apology from Cannon. That is all water under the bridge now, apparently, and Cannon’s career is back on track. 
The “true Hebrews” stuff wasn’t the only problematic thing he said during that podcast. The even more offensive and racist remarks were never acknowledged by most of the media, or by Cannon himself, or even by ViacomCBS when they initially condemned his statements. Cannon in fact has faced no consequence — not even a temporary consequence — for the rest of his racist diatribe, in which he claimed that white people have a “lack of compassion” because of their melanin deficiency. If that wasn’t enough, he also said that white people are “a little less” (inferior to people with darker skin) and that because they don’t have “the power of the Sun” (?) they have behaved “out of fear, out of low self-esteem, out of deficiency” and acted “evil,” robbing and raping in order to survive. White people, Cannon said, “are closer to animals” and are “<a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/entertainment/celebrities/2020/07/15/viacomcbs-fires-nick-cannon-over-anti-semitic-remarks/5440835002/">the true savages</a>&#8220;:
<blockquote>
The people that don’t have (melanin) are – and I&#8217;m going to say this carefully – a little less. When they didn&#8217;t have the power of the sun, it started to deteriorate them so then, they’re acting out of fear, they’re acting out of low self-esteem, they’re acting out of a deficiency. So, therefore, the only way that they can act is evil. They have to rob, steal, rape, kill in order to survive. So then, these people that didn’t have what we have – and when I say &#8220;we,&#8221; I speak of the melanated people – they had to be savages. … They’re acting as animals so they’re the ones that are actually closer to animals. They’re the ones that are actually the true savages.
</blockquote>
This is by far and away the most racist thing that any celebrity of his stature has said in many years, and he never apologized for it. And now he has his job back.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/Dr1_q_8jQdI" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
Let’s stack these two situations up against each other. Wallen used a racial slur, in a non-racial context, was drunk and joking, and never meant for it to be recorded. Cannon, on the other hand, expressed his true feelings about white people, in thorough detail, and did so publicly and proudly. His opinion, as he says himself, is that white people are deficient savages and are inferior to himself. Who has committed the greater sin here? Who suffered the worse consequence? Objectively, there is little doubt that Wallen is the lesser offender (also the lesser human, by Nick Cannon’s way of thinking) and even less doubt that he has endured the more severe professional consequences so far. He’s also the only one between the two of them to have apologized for his racial comment. Will his sin be suddenly wiped away like Cannon&#8217;s? That remains to be seen, but he better not hold his breath.
Who, who has the privilege here? The man who said a bad thing, apologized, and lost his career anyway, or the man who said a worse thing, didn’t apologize, and quickly got his career back? You cannot say the first man has the privilege without removing all meaning from the word.
Is it enough, then, to say that white privilege is a myth and black privilege is real? Not quite. If it were as simple as that, then Candace Owens — not only black but a woman as well — would enjoy all of Nick Cannon’s privilege and then some. But that is clearly not the case. Rather than black or white privilege, it is probably more accurate to speak of Identity Privilege or, more accurately, Tribal Privilege. Your privilege is tied to your tribe, and within the privileged tribe, the pecking order is determined by a complicated and convoluted hierarchy of identities. Nick Cannon can survive and thrive in spite of his insanely racist views — or even, partly, because of them — due first and foremost to his leftism. If Cannon were a conservative, an acolyte of Thomas Sowell instead of Louis Farrakhan, there would be no redemption arc.
Through his degree of intersectional privilege Cannon can say pretty much whatever he wants about race. But he is not at the very top of the intersectional heap, so if instead of white people, he had labeled, say, gay people, or transgenders, or women, as “a little less,” then he would be banished from polite society with all of the same speed and vengeance that has been directed at Morgan Wallen. 
And as for Morgan Wallen, he is white, a country singer, and he lives in Nashville. This make him, for all intents and purposes anyway, a conservative, or at least conservative-adjacent. He is the wrong race and in the wrong ideological tribe. The only privilege he has is the kind he can buy with his wealth. That will probably be enough to keep him comfortable for a while, but not enough to save his career or his reputation. That kind of privilege is reserved for men like Nick Cannon.
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Nick Cannon

WALSH: Nick Cannon Gets His Job Back After Calling White People ‘Savages.’ This Is How Real Privilege Works.

Morgan Wallen

An &#8220;Instagram influencer&#8221; (i.e. a rich woman who takes a lot of selfies) was at the center of controversy this week when she got into a heated argument with Lebron James during a Los Angeles Lakers vs. Atlanta Hawks game in Atlanta. Juliana Carlos, who had courtside seats next to her husband, claimed in a video after the spat that Lebron called her a &#8220;f***ing b*tch.&#8221; Carlos returned the favor, calling Lebron a &#8220;f***ing p***y&#8221; along with a host of other choice terms. There is no evidence that the NBA star actually said what he is accused of saying, and Carlos has since issued an apology and claimed full responsibility for the episode.
Lebron has had little to say about all of this publicly, except to tweet: &#8220;Courtside Karen was MAD MAD!!&#8221; The Courtside Karen moniker quickly caught on, started trending on Twitter, and now most of the media headlines about the story use that nickname in reference to Carlos. This has been the trend for the past year or so. Obnoxious white women — or white women who are labeled obnoxious, fairly or not — are called &#8220;Karen,&#8221; sometimes with an additional identifier like &#8220;Courtside&#8221; or &#8220;<a href="https://nypost.com/2021/01/12/soho-karen-mocked-for-trash-crop-top-sandals-and-socks/">Soho</a>.&#8221; A culture that finds nearly everything &#8220;problematic&#8221; has somehow found no problems with this.
Admittedly, in Juliana Carlos&#8217;s case, the charge of obnoxiousness certainly applies. I have no interest in defending her on a personal level. Wealthy Instagram influencers who make fools of themselves in public are not widely viewed as sympathetic characters, and I have no intention of trying to change that. But what I loathe even more than spoiled brats like Carlos are double standards, and the &#8220;Karen&#8221; meme represents a rather massive one. &#8220;Karen&#8221; is in fact a racial slur, both in its common usage and its original intent, and I can find no compelling reason to give it a pass. A racial slur is a racial slur. They are all bad — even when used against white people, believe it or not.
Anyone who doubts the racial connotation of “Karen” need only listen to the people who originated and popularized it. Articles like Time Magazine&#8217;s &#8220;The &#8216;Karen Meme&#8217; Confronts the Violent History of White Womanhood” and Teen Vogue&#8217;s &#8220;Karen Is Being Used by White Women — Here&#8217;s Why They Need to Stop&#8221; make it clear not only that &#8220;the archetypal Karen is a white woman” but that those who came up with this slur are very possessive and protective of it. As the Teen Vogue piece clarifies, the &#8220;Karen&#8221; meme is &#8220;an inside joke within communities of color.” White people who adopt it or try to erase its racial connotation are guilty of a kind of slur-appropriation.
A Daily Beast essay from earlier this month says that &#8220;&#8216;Karen,&#8217; like the once-popular phrase &#8216;Becky,&#8217; became a moniker to describe white women who were problematic.” The author expresses a desire to abandon usage of the term, but not because it’s racist. He fears instead that Karens are being dangerously “normalized.&#8221;
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/STsuIPvqAik?start=2260" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
If you prefer to go to Wikipedia for your information, here’s what that site says about the origins of &#8220;Karen&#8221;:
<blockquote>There are several possible origins of the term. One theory is that it is an evolution of an African-American Vernacular English term of referring to &#8220;unreasonable white women.&#8221; The term may have originated on <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Twitter">Black twitter</a> as a meme used to describe white women who &#8220;tattle on Black kids&#8217; lemonade stands&#8221;. <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bitch_(magazine)">Bitch</a> [magazine] described it as a term that originated with Black women but was co-opted by white men.</blockquote>
There is no doubt that this is a racial term. That is not a question. The question is whether, though it is a racial term, it qualifies as a racist term, a slur. To answer that question we can try a very simple thought experiment. Let us imagine an exactly analogous situation. What if white people on Twitter started to refer to obnoxious black women using a stereotypical black woman name? In order to properly frame this, let’s consult an ABC News article from a few years ago listing what they call “The Top 20 &#8216;Whitest&#8217; and &#8216;Blackest&#8217; Names.” Near the top of the &#8220;blackest&#8221; female names list, according to ABC News, is &#8220;Shanice.&#8221; As a hypothetical example, what if there were an &#8220;inside joke among white communities&#8221; where unpleasant black women were  called &#8220;Shanices&#8221;? Imagine: &#8220;Oh man, I was at the grocery store and this Shanice comes up to me and&#8230; etc.&#8221;
Would there be any doubt about whether that qualifies as racist? Would anyone dare suggest that it isn’t racist? I certainly wouldn’t. It would be absolutely clear to me that using a stereotypical black female name as a pejorative to refer to black women you don’t like is extremely bigoted, in just about every conceivable way. Everyone would be on the same page. We all would agree that &#8220;Shanice&#8221; is a slur, and obviously so. Many thinkpieces would be written with titles like &#8220;The Shanice Meme is An Attack On Black Womanhood&#8221; and &#8220;&#8216;Shanice&#8217; Proves Racism Is Still Alive,&#8221; and so on. The excuses offered for &#8220;Karen&#8221; wouldn&#8217;t pass muster in the case of &#8220;Shanice.&#8221; Just think:
<blockquote>&#8220;It&#8217;s okay because the women we call &#8216;Shanice&#8217; actually are annoying and obnoxious!&#8221;
&#8220;&#8216;Shanice&#8217; isn&#8217;t racist. Sometimes the word is applied to white people, too!&#8221;
&#8220;Black women call each other &#8216;Shanice&#8217; sometimes. That must mean it&#8217;s not racist!&#8221;</blockquote>
All of these justifications are offered for &#8220;Karen.&#8221; They would not work in the &#8220;Shanice&#8221; hypothetical. And they shouldn&#8217;t, because they&#8217;re weak, silly, and beside the point.
If it is so obvious that &#8220;Karen&#8221; originates as a racial slur, is intended to be a slur, is often used as a slur, and this exact kind of slur would never fly when applied to people of other races, then why do so few white people object to it? I think it is because white people in modern American culture don&#8217;t think they&#8217;re allowed to object to this kind of thing. They have come to believe, after years of brainwashing, that it would be racist for them to recoil from racism targeted at them. Or else they believe that racism towards other groups is a deep moral evil while racism towards them is, at worst, a frivolous concern. This is all wrong, of course. Racism is racism is racism. It is all bad. It is all worthy of condemnation. And we should not make exceptions in this case.
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

People on strike against racism

WALSH: ‘Karen’ Is An Anti-White Racial Slur

Karen

Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, during a discussion with her fans on Instagram Live this week, offered a harrowing and tearful account of the trauma she suffered during the Capitol Hill riots. Her description of that afternoon&#8217;s events was replete with visual demonstrations and plenty of dramatic pauses, interspersed with broadside attacks against her political opponents. She insisted that those who want to move on from the riot are acting like pathological &#8220;abusers,&#8221; revealing in the process that she herself has been a victim of sexual abuse. At another point, bizarrely, she criticized one of the Capitol police officers who protected her, condemning him for the allegedly unpleasant attitude and facial expressions he displayed as he ushered her to safety.
The media, of course, ate all of this up. We are told that her description of the riot was emotional and compelling, and that her trauma demands our attention and sympathy. Personally I would have little problem with anything she said (aside from when she smeared the men who were protecting her), if not for the fact that this woman had spent the last several months ignoring, excusing, and romanticizing the very same sort of chaos to which she in turn fell victim.
Recall her <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1266896519405244417">words</a> back in May slamming those calling for an end to all the violent unrest:
<blockquote>If you&#8217;re trying to call for the end of unrest but you don&#8217;t believe health care is a human right; if you&#8217;re afraid to say black lives matter; if you&#8217;re too scared to call out police brutality, then you aren&#8217;t asking for an end of unrest. You are asking for injustice to continue.</blockquote>
Note that she said all of that only two days after a police precinct was invaded and burned to the ground in Minneapolis. She also shared an <a href="https://twitter.com/RealSaavedra/status/1266909202389192705?s=20">image</a> on her Instagram page giving people advice on how to “protest safely.” This advice included things like “wear nondescript, solid colored clothing” and “cover identifying tattoos.” Protesters are exhorted to put their phone on airplane mode and not to bring anything they don’t want to be arrested with, such as knives or drugs. The point of this advice, quite explicitly, was to help people commit crimes and engage in mob violence without getting caught, or to limit their legal liability if they are.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/E0UU057CSoA" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
All through the summer, her stance on rioting varied between tacit endorsement and explicit endorsement. As $2 billion in damage was inflicted in our communities, and 25 people lost their lives to the chaos, the only people AOC vocally condemned were those who wanted it all to end. She did not expect to ever come face to face with the kind of anarchy she fomented and encouraged. When it happened, she cried, and pointed fingers, and demanded from the world exactly the kind of sympathy and understanding that she herself refused to show.
What happened to her, she says now, was a great and historic crime. A tragedy of staggering proportions. As for the violence, death, and destruction visited upon Average Americans — the convenience store owners who saw their businesses incinerated, the retail employees whose places of work were ransacked, the community members who were too afraid to leave their homes because of the mayhem outside, the cancer stricken children huddling in fear in their cancer center while BLM rioters smashed the windows downstairs, the woman in Rochester who was beaten with two by fours while trying to stop looters from destroying her business, the retired police captain shot dead and left to bleed out in the street, the random pedestrians harassed and assaulted, and so on — as for all of them, AOC has never breathed a word of genuine concern or support. On the contrary, she romanticizes the cause of their suffering and excuses those who inflicted it.
In many ways, Cortez was fortunate. When the chaos came knocking on her door, she was protected. There were police on the scene to whisk her away to safety, even if their bedside manner was not to her liking. But many of the victims of rioting in our cities over the summer had no such insulation or protection. They had to try to protect themselves, and often paid a dear price for it. Remember, for example, the elderly man in Kenosha who went to stop rioters from looting the mattress store where he worked, only to be attacked, bashed over the head, and left lying on the sidewalk with a broken jaw.
AOC never spoke out on that man&#8217;s behalf, or on the behalf of other riot victims. Now she wants us to forget all of that and focus on her and her feelings and her trauma. She wants more of the same, in other words: average people forgotten and ignored, while all of the attention goes to the powerful and the famous. It&#8217;s disgraceful. And though I am sorry for what she went through, and I wish it hadn&#8217;t happened, I will continue to reserve most of my sympathy for those riot victims who suffered more than she did, and who paid a much steeper cost, and whose names we do not even know.
The views expressed in this piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez

WALSH: AOC Dismissed The Suffering Of Riot Victims But Now Wants Us To Have Sympathy For Her

Riots

With counts still ongoing, a recount in Georgia not even started, and legal challenges still being mounted — in other words, when the matter of who actually won the election was still very much up in the air — the media decided that it had seen enough and declared Joe Biden the winner. As to this decision, I will maintain my radical stance that we can never know who won any election until all legal votes have been counted, and accusations of improprieties have been investigated and litigated. That has not happened yet in this case. We remain in limbo, whether the media chooses to acknowledge it or not. 
But none of this stopped Joe Biden from taking to the stage Saturday to deliver his victory speech — a speech breathtaking in its dishonesty, phoniness, and arrogance. Of course, dishonesty, phoniness, and arrogance are the general tenor of almost any political victory speech, or political speech of any other kind, but this one managed to raise the bar by several notches.
Biden stressed &#8220;unity&#8221; over and over again, promised to bring Americans together and &#8220;heal&#8221; us, declared an end to partisanship, and announced his intentions to &#8220;restore the soul of America.&#8221; I am not sure how a soul is restored, much less how a president can do it. Perhaps it&#8217;s something that can be handled through Executive Order. However it is done, the point is that our souls have been restored, we are healed, and we can unite together, clasping hands in fields of daffodils and singing songs of joy. All is right in the world because Uncle Joe is here to sniff our hair and calm our fears.
But it is an odd thing — this healing, this unity. Even as Biden lays his healing hands upon us, and keeps them there for an uncomfortably long time, other Democrats like Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez are busy compiling <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/ocasio-cortez-evan-mcmullin-lets-make-a-list-of-trump-supporters-firestorm-erupts">enemies lists</a> of people who supported Trump. Something called the “Trump Accountability Project” has been formed for the purpose of blacklisting anyone who committed the crime of wrongthink over the past four years. It appears that before we can hold hands and dance in the fields of flowers, a few — say, 70 million or so — heretics must be burned at the stake. Biden apparently forgot to mention that the healing shall commence only after his enemies have been slain before him. I suppose that doesn’t sound quite as inspiring in a speech. 
That’s all this unity and healing stuff really is: fodder for speeches. Namely, speeches delivered by a man who belongs to the ideological and political club which has, for the past several years, insisted that all of their opponents are bigots, racists, or worse, and not worthy of acceptance in polite society. Anyone who threatened their agenda or defied their wishes was slandered, smeared, and ripped to shreds — labeled a gang rapist, even, if that’s what it took. In recent months, they have taken this machiavellian gospel to the streets, burning and looting and making victims of their fellow Americans, none of whom did anything in particular to incur their wrath. These are the same people who will tell you that if you belong to a certain race (white) and sex (male), you are fundamentally and irretrievably broken. Racist by your very nature, and probably a sexist, too. And, they have told us, we cannot come together under the flag or as Americans because America is systemically racist, a global disgrace, and its heroes are all monsters whose monuments must be defiled and destroyed. 
But now a man steps out from among this group of bullies and smear merchants, and bids us to unite. Unite around what, though? And for what? What commonality, what shared sense of purpose, what universal goal or value, is supposed to bind us together? I wouldn’t know how to unite with Joe Biden and his ilk even if I wanted to — which, frankly, I don’t. Because I know the answer to my own questions. We are meant to unite in submission to the Democrat Party and its doctrines. We are meant to come together around the Democrats and their hollow vessel of a leader, to say congratulations, and hooray, and we agree, and about four or five other pre-approved sentiments. This is the unity for which Joe Biden pleads. 
“I have won, so now we can be friends, as long as you follow the marching orders,” he says with a magnanimous smile. Well, call me ungrateful, but I do not find this pitch very appealing, nor believable. I don’t like division, but I’ll take it over a false and empty unity, around a false and empty man. 
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-the-left-has-called-trumps-election-illegitimate-for-four-years-now-theyre-mad-that-hes-returning-the-favor">The Left Has Called Trump’s Election Illegitimate For Four Years. Now They’re Mad That He’s Returning The Favor.</a>
The views expressed in this opinion piece are the author&#8217;s own and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Joe Biden

WALSH: Now That Biden Thinks He’s Won, He Wants Us To ‘Unite.’ Sorry, I’ll Pass. 

I’m a little fuzzy on some of the details, but as far as I understand it, the QAnon conspiracy theory alleges that Donald Trump is secretly at war with a global ring of satanic pedophiles, and some shadowy agent codenamed Q is posting anonymous updates on the new developments. There is about as much solid evidence to support this idea as there is to support the claim that the Sandy Hook massacre was a hoax. Which is to say, there is no evidence. While this absurd theory has gotten a lot of media attention, a far more pernicious conspiracy theory than QAnon is tearing our country apart.
As is usually the case with these things, those advancing conspiracy theories tend to think that the existence of a certain fact is itself sufficient proof for the whole cinematic storyline they have concocted to explain it. Sandy Hook truthers point out that certain web pages — memorial sites, news articles, etc — were timestamped for before the attack occurred. This, along with a couple of other random data points, some true and some not, is supposed to be all the evidence needed that 20 dead children never actually existed, or were paid actors. A more logical explanation, of course, and one that doesn’t require a whole frantic succession of additional unproven assertions, is that timestamps on the internet are sometimes wrong, and there’s nothing terribly unusual or bizarre about that. In the case of QAnon, proponents can point to the existence of global sex traffickers like Jeffrey Esptein, and this somehow is supposed to strongly indicate that all of the other claims made by some random guy posting on 4chan are reliable. This is how conspiracy theories work. They feed on our credulity and our very human tendency to make sense of the world by drawing false connections, assuming motivations, and imagining, hoping, that reality is as decipherable and organized as it seems in Hollywood films.
These theories are baseless, and rather embarrassing, but the media wants to make them into something more. We are frequently told that Q acolytes are a danger to our democracy and that they may turn violent at any moment. Yet with extremely rare exception, that simply hasn’t happened and there are no signs that it will start happening. QAnon remains a constant threat to spam our Twitter threads and post wacky memes — other than that, there is no reason to fear them. But there is another popular conspiracy theory that should perhaps cause some anxiety among the same. One with many more adherents, vastly greater influence, amplified by mainstream voices in media and entertainment, and which has proven to be a real and catastrophic threat to our physical safety, our system of government, and the future of our democracy. On an intellectual level, it is no more credible than QAnon or Sandy Hook, and probably quite a bit less credible. Worst of all, this conspiracy theory has the advantage of not being widely and properly considered or labeled a conspiracy theory, which only increases its perceived legitimacy and causes it to grow and spread like mold in a flooded basement. I refer to the theory that agents of white supremacy — within law enforcement and without — are hunting and murdering black people all across the country.
After the grand jury decision was announced on Wednesday, a guest on MSNBC ranted against “state sponsored white supremacy and killing of black people” and claimed that “you can’t go anywhere if you’re black” because blacks are being murdered by racist whites with such regularity. As proof of this extraordinary claim — made, it should be remarked, by a black man who says he can’t go anywhere and yet is sitting comfortably on national TV launching wild accusations against the very country that protects his right to do so safely — the guest Jason Johnson mentions three unrelated cases over the course of two years. In two of the cases, Atatiana Jefferson and Botham Jean, the cops responsible were indicted. Neither case has any plausible connection to racism at all. He also mentions Ahmaud Arbery, whose killers have likewise been charged. This doesn’t come anywhere close to justifying the claim that black people “can’t go anywhere” for fear of being executed by “state sponsored” white supremacists. And he is of course completely ignoring the statistical reality that blacks are more likely to kill whites than the other way around, and that blacks are not significantly more likely to be killed during the course of an arrest than are whites. He has done exactly what conspiracy theorists always do, taking a few random facts or events, plucking them out of context, disregarding from the outset all alternative explanations for those facts, making no attempt to view them from a wider perspective, and constructing around them a far reaching narrative that creates more holes than it fills and requires more explanation than it provides.
Johnson may be making claims that are absurd, dangerous, and utterly lacking any factual basis whatsoever, but he is not alone out on that limb. This is the narrative presented by BLM and its mouthpieces. LeBron James says that black people can’t leave their homes because they are being “hunted.” There is no elected Democrat on the national stage who will publicly disagree with that proclamation, and most have made similar statements. The mainstream liberal media, Hollywood, the Democrat Party — all have joined with the delusional rioter in the street who speaks of a white supremacist conspiracy to exterminate innocent black Americans. None have offered any evidence of this conspiracy. They have only random anecdotes, all of which can be easily accounted for without recourse to imaginary genocides.
Unlike QAnon, this conspiracy theory has real world consequences. One whacko was motivated by the Pizzagate conspiracy theory to show up to the Comet Ping Pong pizzeria in DC and fire off three shots, hitting no one but damaging a wall and a door, and four years later this event is still trotted out as an example of the dangers of far right conspiracy mongering. Meanwhile, hundreds of thousands of people have been motivated by the “white supremacists are hunting black people” conspiracy theory to torch cop cars, destroy buildings, loot, vandalize, assault, and kill. If Pizzagate and QAnon have dangerous implications than the theory promoted by BLM is downright apocalyptic in its consequences. It is intended to be. Those who propagate it are actively trying to destroy the public’s faith in our institutions. One’s faith in our institutions will naturally tend to waiver if one seriously believes that they are run by genocidal white supremacists. And now the calls for the abolition of police can be heard even from mainstream voices, as well as the radicals and militants who prowl our communities every night, rampaging and pillaging, and feeling morally justified all the while because they are only tearing down a system that murders innocent black people in droves. This is the conspiracy theory that burns our cities, and tears our country apart, and threatens to damage us in ways that I fear cannot be undone.
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-nearly-everything-blm-is-saying-about-the-breonna-taylor-case-is-false">Nearly Everything BLM Is Saying About The Breonna Taylor Case Is False </a>

Portland Police

WALSH: The Conspiracy Theory That Tears Our Country Apart

Conspiracy Theory

Defund The Police

Systemic Racism

The narrative surrounding the Breonna Taylor case, advanced by BLM and Antifa and their allies in the media, has proven to be almost entirely false. The narrative in these high-profile police shootings is almost always false, of course. The question is one of degree — just how wrong will it turn out to be? In nearly all of the high-profile cases over the past few months, that answer has generally varied between “extremely” and “incredibly.”
Initially, it was reported that police burst into the <a href="https://www.kiro7.com/news/trending/breonna-taylor-family-files-lawsuit-after-louisville-police-shoot-emt-8-times-wrong-house-raid/MCMJQBYNJRCTXE6C7CKDBJ4TFE/">wrong apartment</a> without knocking during a botched drug raid and murdered Taylor <a href="https://www.npr.org/2020/05/13/855705278/sleeping-while-black-louisville-police-kill-unarmed-black-woman">while she slept</a>. That would be indefensible if it were true. It isn&#8217;t.
As Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron explained in his press conference on Wednesday, officers were serving a legal warrant at the right location and they did knock before entering. An independent witness corroborates that they announced and identified themselves. Upon entering the residence, Breonna’s Taylor’s boyfriend, Kenneth Walker, opened fire on the officers. When police returned fire, Breonna Taylor was hit and killed. A warrant had been issued for Taylor’s apartment because there was <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/myths-misconceptions-about-the-breonna-taylor-case">reason to suspect</a> that Taylor, or at least her apartment, was in some way involved in her criminal ex-boyfriend’s drug enterprise. As court documents show, Taylor’s car was spotted multiple times outside of a known drug house that was under surveillance by law enforcement. Taylor is reportedly on tape referring to the drug house while speaking to her then-boyfriend while he was in jail. In 2016, the body of a murder victim was allegedly found in a car rented by Taylor, which she said she had lent to her boyfriend. Shortly after her death, the ex-boyfriend was again recorded in jailhouse phone conversations claiming that Taylor was “handling [his] money.”
The point is that the warrant was issued for entirely valid reasons. The cops executed it according to the law, following all of the proper protocols, and only opened fire after Walker had begun shooting at them. There is no basis for calling this a “murder,” much less a racist murder by agents of white supremacy. It is a tragic accident, a catastrophic confluence of events. Many other terms could be used to describe it, but the fact remains that officers were serving a lawful warrant, acting within the bounds of the law, and responding with lethal force to the lethal force being used against them.
As usual, those accusing the officers of criminal conduct have not bothered to explain what they might have done differently. Should they not have obtained the warrant for the apartment, despite having credible reason to believe that it had ties to drug trafficking? Should they not have executed the warrant? Should they have waited outside for someone to come to the door, and if the residents refused to answer then just packed up and gone home? Or should they have not returned fire once fired upon, instead diving to the floor or hiding behind furniture and hoping the assailant stops before a bullet hits them in the face? 
Radical BLM activists have made it clear that their problem with the police is that the police exist at all. Anything the police do, therefore, is wrong, for the simple fact that the police are the ones doing it. For the BLM and its &#8220;Defund the Police&#8221; allies, the fight against police brutality is a fight against policing itself. All law enforcement is “brutality,” in their minds. And anyone who dies at the hands of police — any black person, anyway — has been murdered, no matter what, regardless of context. This is the radicalism that holds our cities hostage, the madness to which we are all supposed to bow. It dresses itself in the garb of racial justice, and carries signs that say “equality,” but it is all a decidedly unconvincing disguise for their radical assault on law and order, and civilization itself. 
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/blm-deletes-what-we-believe-section-of-website-here-are-the-agenda-items-they-no-longer-want-you-to-see">BLM Deletes ‘What We Believe’ Section Of Website. Here Are The Agenda Items They No Longer Want You To See.</a>
This post has been revised for clarity.

Breonna Taylor protestors marched in NYC

WALSH: Nearly Everything BLM Is Saying About The Breonna Taylor Case Is False 

Black Lives Matter

Breonna Taylor

The Scientific American came out this week with its first presidential endorsement in 175 years, urging its readers to vote for Joe Biden. Donald Trump, claims the publication, “rejects evidence and science,” whereas Biden allegedly “has a record of following the data and being guided by science.”
On the heels of this announcement, Joe Biden’s wife, Jill Biden, tweeted “#VoteForScience.” Governor Andrew Cuomo wrote simply “Science knows.” Many others on the Left and in the media chimed in, hailing Joe Biden as science’s Guardian and Protector, and themselves as its greatest fans.
Biden is glad to play this role. Speaking in Wilmington on Monday, the former vice president spoke about the need to govern according to science. He also said this:
<blockquote>Donald Trump’s climate denial may not have caused these fires and record floods and record hurricanes but if he gets a second term these hellish events will continue to become more common, more devastating, and more deadly… If we have four more years of Trump’s climate denial, how many suburbs will be burned in wildfires, how many suburban neighborhoods will have been flooded out, how many suburbs will have been blown away in superstorms? If you give a climate arsonist four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised if we have more of America ablaze? If you give a climate denier four more years in the White House, why would anyone be surprised when more of America is under water?</blockquote>
Leaving aside the fact that the pejorative “climate arsonist” makes even less sense than “climate denier,” Biden here is accusing his political opponent of causing, or at least failing to prevent, fires, floods, and hurricanes. In no uncertain terms, he says that re-electing Donald Trump will mean that your entire neighborhood might be swept away in a superstorm, drowned in floods, or incinerated (hopefully not all at once).
Joe Biden, patron saint of science, apparently believes that there is some sort of physical mechanism by which the President of the United States can actually cause hurricanes to materialize and flood waters to rise. He is not talking about humans merely contributing in some partial way to gradual changes in climate over the course of many decades and centuries. Rather, he is suggesting that one single human on Earth today can, through his own exertions, have a material impact on global weather conditions. When Biden and his supporters speak of “science,” this is what they mean.
But at least Biden’s theory of climate change is slightly less crazy than Nancy Pelosi’s, who recently speculated that wild fires happen because “Mother Earth is angry, she is telling us… the climate crisis is real.” The idea that natural disasters are the result of a displeased Earth goddess may have passed for science among ancient tribes in the year 6,000 BC, but it is a bit outmoded in the modern age. Yet this, again, is what we get from the Party of Science.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/uwmfvLevbMc?start=40" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
The Party of Science also tells us that the child conceived by two human beings and developing in the womb of his mother is not fully human, or not fully person, or not fully alive. As an MSNBC anchor once <a href="https://cnsnews.com/news/article/msnbc-royal-baby-parents-feelings-say-when-life-begins-not-science">put it</a>, the answer to when life begins &#8220;depends an awful lot on the feeling of the parents.&#8221; These same custodians and conservators of science say that a male can have a functioning female reproductive system, and a female can have a penis and a Y chromosome. Or perhaps, say the science lovers, a person may have no gender at all. They may be &#8220;gender fluid,&#8221; possessing no discernible form. Once again: science.
I have personally asked two prominent leftists with doctorates — one a medical doctor, the other a supposed &#8220;internationally recognized expert on sexuality&#8221; — to define the words &#8220;man&#8221; and &#8220;woman,&#8221; and neither of these left-wing science experts with PhDs could do it. Dr. Eugene Gu <a href="https://twitter.com/eugenegu/status/1150949138864803841?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1150949138864803841%7Ctwgr%5Eshare_3&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.dailywire.com%2Fnews%2Fwalsh-i-asked-left-wing-doctor-define-word-man-he-matt-walsh">told me</a> that a man can be defined as &#8220;anyone who identifies as a man.&#8221; Dr. Logan Levkoff <a href="https://twitter.com/LoganLevkoff/status/1297922673650159623">insisted</a> that a &#8220;woman&#8221; is &#8220;anything she wants to be.&#8221; The latter answer might make a good inspirational slogan for a guidance counselor&#8217;s bulletin board, but it is not science.
Perhaps the situation can be summarized this way: the side of the political aisle that talks the most about science, and most trumpets its own commitment to the methods of science, also believes that it’s possible that a man who is pregnant with a non-human fetus might die in a hurricane caused by the president. That is all that needs to be said to establish that the Party of Science has rather failed to live up to its assumed name.
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/walsh-many-mainstream-film-critics-have-come-out-in-defense-of-cuties-heres-why-their-arguments-are-wrong">Many Mainstream Film Critics Have Come Out In Defense Of ‘Cuties.’ Here’s Why Their Arguments Are Wrong.</a>

walsh-super-teaser-scaled-compressed

WALSH: The ‘Party Of Science’ Is Waging A War On Science 

Climate Change

Democratic Party

Gender

Kamala Harris is the latest high-profile Democrat to meet with and pay homage to Jacob Blake and his family. After speaking with them for an hour, Harris gushed to reporters that Blake Sr., known for ranting about “Jews” and “crackers” on social media, and Blake Jr., accused of drunkenly abusing a woman over the course of several years before finally breaking into her house and raping her, are “incredible.”
Blake family attorney Benjamin Crump, a man for whom the term “ambulance chaser” was invented, issued a press release after the visit, providing more details about the kumbaya session. According to <a href="https://twitter.com/Breaking911/status/1303057677443047425">Crump</a>: “Senator Harris had an inspirational and uplifting one-hour visit with Jacob Blake, Jr. and his family today. She spoke individually with each family member about how they were handling the trauma and urged them to take care of their physical and mental health. In a moving moment, Jacob Jr. told Sen. Harris that he was proud of her, and the senator told Jacob that she was also proud of him and how he is working through his pain.” 
Now would be a good time to remind ourselves why Blake Jr. finds himself in a position where he must “work through his pain.” A few months ago, a sobbing and trembling woman called 911 to report that Jacob Blake had allegedly broken into her home early in the morning, digitally raped her, humiliated her, then stolen her debit card and vehicle. On the day of the shooting, police say, Blake had returned to his alleged victim’s house with a knife, taken her keys, and then actively resisted arrest when police arrived in response to the woman’s emergency call. This is the man that apparently swells Kamala Harris with pride. 
She is not alone. Joe Biden had his own state visit with the royal family of Kenosha and <a href="https://www.cnn.com/us/live-news/kenosha-jacob-blake-09-03-2020/h_29d864863ffdb175aed07c90692a204b">spoke</a> emotionally about the resilience, hope, and optimism of the accused rapist and serial abuser. The media, of course, has played a crucial role in Blake’s canonization. On Monday, the New York Times published a lengthy article about the suspected rapist’s medical challenges, declaring that Blake can now be the “rare survivor” to “tell his own story.” It takes the article’s author, Nicholas Bogel-Burroughs, about 30 sentences to finally mention the rape charge, and then as vaguely as possible. Bogel-Burroughs writes only that “Mr. Blake pleaded not guilty on Friday to three domestic charges against him, including a sexual assault count.” 
No mention of the specific <a href="https://archive.is/YcYRU#selection-2199.0-2331.16">details of the charge</a>, which are harrowing and horrifying. And no mention of the knife allegedly in Blake’s possession on the day of the shooting. No mention that he assaulted the police officers who came to the aid of his alleged victim. The alleged victim herself gets only one half-sentence of acknowledgement. She is described as “the woman who reported the assault.” And that’s the end of it. We are told nothing of her condition, how she feels, how she’s holding up, how she’s coping with seeing millionaire athletes and celebrities rally around and celebrate the man who she says raped, abused, and terrorized her. The New York Times does not consider her physical or emotional state relevant. And on that point, Biden, Harris, and the rest of the Democrats seem to agree. 
This is quite interesting, coming from the same people who in very recent history have spoken so passionately about the need to “amplify the voices of sexual violence survivors.” Speaking of which, the leaders of #MeToo just last week launched something called the “survivor’s agenda” which is supposed to “amplify the voices of sexual violence survivors.” In a <a href="https://msmagazine.com/2020/09/02/survivors-agenda-metoo-leaders-amplify-voices-of-sexual-violence-survivors/">video</a> announcing the new initiative, the #MeToo warriors said that though they’ve made “incredible strides” and had some “amazing wins,” there is still much that must be done to ensure that society “takes survivors seriously” and that “all survivors are heard.”
We’ve always known that exceptions are made to this “amplify their voices” thing whenever a high-profile Democrat politician is accused. But over the past few months we’ve learned that the exempt list also includes women who are allegedly brutalized by men who later die or are injured in police custody — provided, of course, that the circumstances (including the races of those involved) are politically useful to groups like BLM. 
George Floyd was convicted of forcing his way into a woman’s home, shoving a gun into her stomach, and robbing her. Jacob Blake is credibly accused of the brutal crimes already described. These victims’ voices are far from “amplified.” On the contrary, the very existence of these women is covered up, buried, ignored. The champions of #MeToo won’t “say their names” or even acknowledge them in passing. They are shoved to the side and trampled over in the rush to lionize their abusers. 
There are real consequences to this. First of all, the continued emotional trauma suffered by women who must now live in a country that hails their abusers as heroes is real. Also, will the next woman confronted by a man she knows from experience to be violent and volatile hesitate to call 911, fearing that that he’ll get himself shot and she’ll be blamed for it while society wails in grief over the tragic fate of her abuser? What if Blake’s alleged victim had made that calculation? What if she had not called the police? Would he have done something terrible to her or the children? We can’t know the answer to that question. But we do know that if things had played out that way, BLM would have nothing to say. MeToo would remain quiet. The Left and Democrats like Biden and Harris would yawn and continue along their way. The woman in the Jacob Blake case — the woman who is still just “the woman,” nameless — is not the kind of victim that any of these groups care about. That’s because they don’t really care about women at all.

Joe Biden Kamala Harris

WALSH: By Hailing Jacob Blake As A Hero, Democrats Have Marginalized His Alleged Rape And Abuse Victim

Jacob Blake

Kamala Harris

MeToo

It is a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/black-man-arrested-for-allegedly-executing-white-five-year-old-boy-in-front-of-sisters">story</a> that shocks the conscience. Even amid all of the death and atrocity in the world, it stands out, and sticks with you. Five-year-old Cannon Hinnant was murdered in cold blood this past Sunday while out riding a bike in front of his father’s house. The alleged killer, Darius Sessoms, was witnessed walking right up to the child, putting the gun to his head, and pulling the trigger. An execution at point blank range, of a small child, in front of his sisters who were also playing outside at the time. 
Sessoms initially fled the scene but was caught hours later. It is still not known why he allegedly committed this unspeakable atrocity, though at one level it doesn’t matter. It is obviously a hideous evil no matter the motivation. But you cannot help but ask why, especially when you realize that Sessoms was the next door neighbor, and according to some witnesses, he had just been over for dinner the night before. Whatever the answer to the &#8220;why&#8221; question &#8212; and I suspect we may never be given a coherent one &#8212; a beautiful and joyful child has been taken from the world, and the hole left in his absence will never be filled. That is one thing we know for sure.
Here’s another thing. The name Cannon Hinnant would be known across the country, and the name Darius Sessoms reviled the world over, if the races were reversed. A story of a white man running up to a black child and executing him while he rode his bike would be front page news for weeks. And there would almost certainly be rioting, spurned on in part by the incessant coverage. 
Instead, this story has gotten almost no coverage by the American national media. And when I say “no coverage,” I really mean no coverage. <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1293397738160361472?s=20">A visual here will be instructive</a>.
<blockquote class="twitter-tweet" data-width="500" data-dnt="true">
<a href="https://t.co/i9S9pdkXUo">pic.twitter.com/i9S9pdkXUo</a>
&mdash; Matt Walsh (@MattWalshBlog) <a href="https://twitter.com/MattWalshBlog/status/1293397738160361472?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw">August 12, 2020</a></blockquote>
<script async src="https://platform.twitter.com/widgets.js" charset="utf-8"></script>
As of this morning, when I last checked, a search for Cannon Hinnant turned up zero results with the New York Times, the Washington Post, Reuters, Yahoo News, NBC News, and ABC News. A search on CNN also turns up no results, though Google directs to an article by WRAL, a local news channel in North Carolina. APnews.com does have a little blurb about it, but you have to search to find it. It’s a few sentences long and doesn’t make any mention of the races of the people involved.
In the next few days some of these outlets may follow suit and put up their own blurbs, if they feel some pressure for having ignored it. They may eventually cover the case and move on quickly, confident that they now have plausibile deniability from the bias charge. Or maybe the blackout will continue and none of these outlets will ever breathe a word about the case. Either way, the point is clear. This is not something they want to talk about.
It is easy to anticipate the excuses that will be offered — and in some cases have already been offered — for this outrageous disparity. It will be claimed that Cannon’s execution is not as newsworthy because it was carried out by a civilian, not an agent of the state. But Ahmaud Arbery was killed by civilians. So was Trayvon Martin. They are both household names.
It will be argued that this crime wasn’t racially motivated, which is supposed to make it less relevant to the general public. But even if I agreed with the premise that non-racially motivated crimes aren’t as relevant (and I don’t) and even if it’s true that Cannon’s murder wasn’t motivated by race (we don’t know at this point), this argument still doesn’t wash because Michael Brown wasn’t a racially motivated killing. Neither was Freddie Gray. Or Eric Garner. Or George Floyd. Or, really, any of the famous homicide or alleged homicide cases from the last decade or so. None of them have had any proven link to racism. Yet these victims are also household names.
As a last ditch attempt at obfuscation, it will be said that this crime isn’t on video, thus making it less sensational and giving it less viral potential. It is sad if murder is looked at this way these days — as mere content to be consumed — but I concede that this is in fact how the media views the subject. But there was no video of Trayvon Martin. There was no video of Freddie Gray. And on the other side, I can think of plenty of sensational murders that were caught on video yet received very little coverage. Daniel Shaver, the white Arizona man killed by cops while on his knees begging for his life. Or how about Brittany Hill, the black Chicago mother gunned down by gang members while holding her baby? That is one of the most shocking crimes ever to be caught on camera, and yet the national media has said little about it. 
There simply is no explanation for the way these various incidents are treated, other than the most disgraceful and infuriating one — the national media is specifically interested in fueling a certain racial narrative, and they will make the intentional editorial decision to blacklist or downplay any story that interferes with it.
<iframe loading="lazy" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/MZNA08mBdsM" width="720" height="385" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen="allowfullscreen">﻿</iframe>
Brittany Hill was ignored because she was killed by men with the wrong color skin. The silence around Cannon Hinnant’s name is even more deafening because he was killed by a man with the wrong color skin while also having the wrong color skin himself. We cannot be so jaded that we don’t stop to really focus on this and consider it for the horror that it is: the national media doesn’t care that Cannon Hinnant died, and doesn’t want you to care, because he was white. It is that straightforward, that sick, that evil. There is no way around this. It is the truth. It is undeniable.
The lesson that we take from this is crucial. We live in the Information Age, but information is not the same thing as knowledge, even less is it perspective or wisdom. To be informed of something is merely to be made aware of certain events, often presented in bits and pieces. But we have confused information with knowledge, which means that the people giving us information also give us the illusion of knowledge. They sift through the events of modern society, pulling bits from here and bits from there, presenting pieces of different puzzles, but never the full picture.
We take all of those pieces and imagine that we know something about the world. So, if the national media only ever tell us about white on black killing, and only very carefully selected facts about those killings, and they flat out refuse to acknowledge the existence of black on white killing — or if they have to acknowledge it, only in a dismissive way, and certainly never in the context of any kind of larger trend — then we will begin to think that we know something, and what we know, we think, is that America is a racist country where black people are being hunted and killed, and the reverse almost never happens because white people are protected by their privilege and by the racist institutions that elevate them while oppressing everyone else.
The narrative is all that matters. It is the only thing that is ever considered when deciding what not to cover, what to cover, and how to cover it. And that is why Cannon Hinnant, despite being an innocent young child, savagely cut down in broad daylight, will not be memorialized or mourned over the way that George Floyd was. But that does not change the fact that this is a great tragedy which commands our attention. No matter what CNN says — or, more precisely, doesn’t say — about it.  
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/teachers-openly-fret-parents-might-hear-them-brainwashing-children">Teachers Openly Fret That Parents Might Hear Them Brainwashing Children, Call Parents ‘Dangerous’</a>

CNN HQ

WALSH: National Media Refuse To Cover Murder Of 5-Year-Old Because It Doesn’t Fit Their Racial Narrative

Race

One of the most prominent characteristics of leftists in modern America is their complete inability or unwillingness to apply their principles consistently, especially in their personal lives. Stark illustrations of this problem are provided by the climate alarmist who warns of an impending apocalypse but still maintains a 401k, and the pro-abortion zealot who congratulates a pregnant woman despite believing her to be infested by a subhuman parasite. Of course there are also the well worn examples of the socialist tweeting about the pitfalls of capitalism on his iPhone and the progressive politician preaching about the evils of guns while flanked by a squadron of armed security. It seems that, if not for cognitive dissonance, many on the Left wouldn&#8217;t have any cognition at all.
Nowhere is this dynamic more obvious than in the arena of gender. Leftist gender ideology contradicts itself in so many places that you feel yourself nearly going insane just trying to make sense of it all. It is not one coherent theory but a chaotic web of declarations and doctrines, each asserting itself without any apparent awareness of the others.
The Leftist confusion about gender, and about what their own view on the subject is supposed to be, has been especially on display ever since Joe Biden announced Kamala Harris as his pick for Vice President.
There are other funny and hypocritical things about the pick, too, of course, such as the fact that Harris will now be working under the man she tearfully denounced as racist not even a year ago. But the greater point is that the media&#8217;s <a href="https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/11/opinion/kamala-harris-biden-2020.html">ecstatic reaction</a> to a woman VP pick is belied by the rather serious problem that women don&#8217;t technically exist.
According to leftist ideology, the word &#8220;woman&#8221; has no discernible meaning. A woman is not necessarily a person with XX chromosomes and female reproductive organs. A woman is not defined by anything physical, neurological, psychological, nor behavioral. A woman is not defined by anything, really. Which is to say that a woman isn&#8217;t anything in particular. &#8220;Woman,&#8221; by the light of the Left&#8217;s philosophy, is an arbitrary concept. It has no substance. It is not objective. It can mean anything and be anyone.
If you think I&#8217;m overstating the case here, then approach any leftist currently extolling the woman vice presidential nominee and simply ask them what they mean when they say &#8220;woman.&#8221; They will not be able to answer the question. They cannot define the word. And I mean literally cannot. Their ideology won&#8217;t allow it. As leftists, they are obliged to celebrate the achievements of women, but they are also obliged to deny the objective existence of women. This is the paradox that we are expected to pretend we don&#8217;t notice. But we should notice it, because it reveals the basic incoherence of leftist gender ideology.

WALSH: The Left Celebrates Woman VP Pick, Forgetting That Women No Longer Exist According To Their Ideology 

2020 Election

In one of the creepiest yet most revealing Twitter threads ever to be posted on the platform, a teacher recently fretted out loud that virtual classes might allow parents to hear him brainwashing their kids. Matthew R. Kay, an educator and author of a book on “how to lead meaningful race conversations in the classroom,” worried that “conservative parents” would be able to interfere with the “messy work” of indoctrinating children into critical race theory, gender theory, and other left-wing dogmas.
Here’s the entire <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/philly-teacher-parents-with-access-to-virtual-classrooms-would-do-damage-to-honest-conversations-about-gender-sexuality">thread</a>, which has since been set to private:
<blockquote>So, this fall, virtual class discussion will have many potential spectators — parents, siblings, etc. — in the same room. We’ll never be quite sure who is overhearing the discourse. What does this do for our equity/inclusion work? 
How much have students depended on the (somewhat) secure barriers of our physical classrooms to encourage vulnerability? How many of us have installed some version of “what happens here stays here” to help this? 
While conversation about race are in my wheelhouse, and remain a concern in this no-walls environment — I am most intrigued by the damage that “helicopter/snowplow” parents can do in the host conversations about gender/sexuality. And while “conservative” parents are my chief concern — I know that the damage can come from the left too. If we are engaged in the messy work of destabilizing a kid’s racism or homophobia or transphobia — how much do we want their classmates’ parents piling on?</blockquote>
It’s important to note that while some teachers responded to Kay’s comments with the appropriate level of horror and disgust, many others chimed in to share their own strategies for brainwashing during a pandemic. One teacher said she’d also been “thinking about” the problem Kay described, and had decided that she’d ask students about their preferred pronouns via survey — though she still worries that “caregivers” might see it and learn something about their children that they weren’t supposed to know. 
Another teacher said that students last semester would sometimes “type secrets into the chat” whenever the discussion turned to “anti-racism and gender inclusive content.” Another complained that a white parent— she made sure to specify “white” — in her district recorded a Zoom class and “filed a complaint against the teacher for an anti-racist read aloud (saying the teacher’s commentary was inappropriate and biased).” This, the teacher says, “is going to be an issue.”
A ninth grade teacher shared in the commiseration, saying that her class required students to “read and respond to a news article,” but that participation in this exercise is stunted now because “outsiders” are “listening.” The “outsiders,” to be clear, are the children’s parents. A teacher with pronouns listed in her Twitter handle said that she plans to use the chat function more than voice lectures because she wants children to share &#8220;information” with her in a “parentless way.” A science teacher agreed with all of the sentiments expressed here and summarized it bluntly: “Parents are dangerous.&#8221; 
And these are just the comments that were captured in screenshots before the tweets were all made private. Presumably, there is more where this came from. A lot more.
Several points must be made in response. 
First, classrooms are certainly not “safe places” for children to be “vulnerable.” Students may say and do things when they are with their peers in school that they would not say and do at home, but only a fool who doesn’t understand the first thing about child psychology and the effects of peer pressure would assume that the child’s at-school version of himself is the most authentic, much less the most healthy. The pressure to conform to the values and opinions of your peers in the classroom is immense, and often suffocating. There is a reason why rejection and alienation by peers has contributed to a true epidemic of suicide among young people.
The very same people who extol the classroom as a “safe place” for vulnerability will also tell us, on different days and in different contexts, that bullying is a major problem for today’s youth and many of them are driven to self-destruction because of it. So, which is it? Is the classroom a place for open and genuine dialogue, where children can safely express their truest feelings and beliefs, or is it a place rife with bullying and mockery, where rigid conformity is demanded and those who fail to meet the demands are severely punished? It certainly can’t be both.
Second, an adult keeping a secret with a child, and helping the child conceal that secret from his parent — especially when the secret has anything to do with sexuality — is acting in a way that is nothing short of predatory. If you heard a strange man on the playground whisper to your child, “this will just be our little secret,” you would assume that the man is some kind of sex offender. Does this behavior suddenly transform from disturbing to admirable if the strange man is a teacher? No, it doesn’t. But this is the sort of license society has given to teachers, on the the theory that they cannot do the work of educating unless they have more power over, and intimate knowledge of, their students than the students’ own parents. 
That brings us, finally, to point three, which is that a public school teacher is not supposed to be, and should not try to be, educator, parent, shaman, spiritual guide, therapist, friend, confidant, and sex counselor, all rolled into one. He or she is meant to fill only the first role on that list, and only in the subject the teacher has been assigned to teach. A child’s actual parents only come to be viewed as “dangerous” interlopers and intrusive “outsiders” when teachers begin to view themselves and the school system as the true guardians and conservators of the children that are temporarily in their care. And that, ultimately, is the problem with the modern education system.
Children are not old enough to be emancipated. They cannot yet go out and live their own lives. They cannot make every decision for themselves. They must belong to someone — not owned like objects but cared for and protected like the vulnerable human beings they are. The fundamental question is who do they belong to. Different cultures in different times and places have had different answers to this question.
Here, in contemporary American society, there are generally two ways of looking at it: children belong to their parents, or they belong to the school system (which is to say, the government). In one vision, a child is a son or daughter, in the other, the child is a ward of the state.
Only one of these visions is healthy, natural, and humanizing. Only one can properly facilitate a child’s emotional, mental, intellectual, and spiritual growth. The school system doesn’t just have a wrong and harmful idea of what education is — it has a wrong and harmful idea of what a child is, and what its fundamental role in a child’s life is supposed to be. And that is why I will not send my kids into its clutches. Neither should you. 
More from Matt Walsh: <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/george-floyd-body-cam-footage-is-out">George Floyd Body Cam Footage Is Out. The Story Is Far More Complicated Than Media Led Us To Believe.</a>

Menu

The Matt Walsh Collection

WALSH: A Child Is Born With Three Legal ‘Dads,’ Proving Yet Again That The Slippery Slope Is…

WALSH: Kids Are Struggling To Focus During Online School. Now They’re Being Diagnosed With…

WALSH: Many On The Left Truly Want Their Political Opponents To Die. The Reaction To Limbaugh’s…

WALSH: ‘Bachelor’ Host Called Racist For Advocating Grace And Forgiveness. Now He’s Stepping…

WALSH: Media Says Capitol Riot Killed Five People. The Truth Is More Complicated.

WALSH: Nick Cannon Gets His Job Back After Calling White People ‘Savages.’ This Is How Real…

WALSH: ‘Karen’ Is An Anti-White Racial Slur

WALSH: AOC Dismissed The Suffering Of Riot Victims But Now Wants Us To Have Sympathy For Her

WALSH: Now That Biden Thinks He’s Won, He Wants Us To ‘Unite.’ Sorry, I’ll Pass.

WALSH: The Conspiracy Theory That Tears Our Country Apart

WALSH: Nearly Everything BLM Is Saying About The Breonna Taylor Case Is False

WALSH: The ‘Party Of Science’ Is Waging A War On Science

WALSH: By Hailing Jacob Blake As A Hero, Democrats Have Marginalized His Alleged Rape And Abuse…

WALSH: National Media Refuse To Cover Murder Of 5-Year-Old Because It Doesn’t Fit Their Racial…

WALSH: The Left Celebrates Woman VP Pick, Forgetting That Women No Longer Exist According To…

WALSH: Teachers Openly Fret That Parents Might Hear Them Brainwashing Children, Call Parents…