All Episodes
Previous Next
Jan. 22, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
39:43
Ep. 181 - Left Won't Stop Smearing Covington Catholic Students

Today on the show: the Left is so desperate to justify their smears of the Covington Catholic students that now they have invented another ridiculous accusation. This one even worse and more dishonest than the first. Also, Notre Dame is hiding its Columbus murals. Finally, I'll answer your emails. Date: 01-22-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the left is so desperate to justify their smears of the Covington Catholic students that now they've invented another ridiculous accusation.
And this one is even worse, even more dishonest than the first one.
So we've got to talk about that.
Also, Notre Dame is going to be covering up some murals of Christopher Columbus.
We'll talk about why that is stupid and cowardly and also completely counterproductive.
And finally, I'll answer your emails today on The Matt Wall Show.
Hello and welcome to the show, everybody.
Thanks for watching.
Thanks for being here.
Remember, if you're watching on Facebook and you want to get the entire show, all you have to do is subscribe on iTunes or you can head over to YouTube or you can become a premium subscriber on The Daily Wire where you get a lot of other benefits.
Including full access to my show, which is kind of like, you know, not the best thing.
But you do get that as well.
So as we covered extensively yesterday, the left and the media utterly embarrassed itself with this Covington Catholic story.
They got played by Nathan Phillips, who is a liar and a fraud.
Tried to provoke an altercation with these students, and when he failed, he decided to run to the media and lie about them, which he is still continuing to do, by the way.
He hasn't let off, and we're gonna get to that in a minute.
Now, they also, the left and the media, they believed and promoted a version of the story that entirely excluded the role that was played by the black Hebrew Israelites, which are these crazy cultists who kicked everything off by verbally assaulting the boys and also random passers-by and Native Americans.
They were just insulting everyone with racist, bigoted, anti-gay slurs.
But the left and the media just left them out of the story, didn't even mention that they were there.
And even now, as members of this school, as students at the school, kids, you know, 14, 15-year-old kids, their faces and their names are being plastered everywhere, their biographies are being analyzed by the media.
Some of them are now household names.
And even now, the names of The black men who actually are guilty of harassment and abuse and are the ones who started all of this, their names are unknown.
They remain anonymous.
Does anyone know what their names are?
Does anyone know anything about those guys?
No, because we're focusing all on these students who did nothing wrong.
All in all, the left and the media obviously botched the story, but now, The facts have come out, right?
And we talked about this yesterday.
We got into what all the facts are.
The facts have come out.
The boys have been completely, conclusively vindicated.
We now have video evidence that shows exactly what happened.
And it does not line up with the story as it was first presented.
We know who the real culprits are now.
The culprits are the black Hebrew Israelites and also Nathan Phillips.
Those are the bad guys in this situation.
But still, even in spite of that, the left is clinging to its original narrative.
In the face of all the evidence to the contrary, in the face of the fact that they were clearly played by a con artist, they still are clinging to it.
They're gonna stick with their original version, and now it's a game of just trying to kind of retroactively justify their treatment of these boys.
So, what have they come up with?
As they've realized that the original story, well, that's not how it went, so now they're trying to come up with other reasons to go after these kids.
And they've come up with a few reasons.
But here's the big one that you would have seen all over social media yesterday.
Now they're telling us that the Covington Catholic students once wore blackface to a basketball game where they proceeded to harass the black players of the other team.
Now, once again, like we talked about yesterday, this accusation, there should be just sort of an immediate smell test you can do with this sort of stuff.
And when you hear a story like that, Um, that they all wore blackface to a basketball game.
You should just, you should basically disregard it immediately, unless someone can provide you with conclusive evidence that that is exactly what happened.
Conclusive evidence in context, and you look at the whole thing and you say, okay, well that happened.
But in lieu of that, I mean, your first reaction should be, okay, no, there's no way that happened.
You're telling me all these kids went to a basketball game in blackface?
You should be able to do that.
The idea that a bunch of students would just randomly wear racist costumes to a basketball game, and then the school would take pictures of it.
Now the picture, which I'll show you in a minute, of these kids allegedly wearing blackface, this was a picture taken by the school.
So what, the school all got together and said, hey everybody, wear your racist costumes today, we're gonna take pictures, put it online.
Well, that's just not believable at all.
It seems like something that's totally made up, and it is.
Yet the left has been spreading this false story, and now some news outlets have reported it.
So here's the trash, worthless, garbage, rag, New York Daily News.
Here's their headline.
Covington Catholic High School students in blackface at past basketball game.
So they're just putting it out there as a fact.
They're not even thrown in allegedly or Some have reported or whatever.
This is just, they're saying it's blackface at a basketball game.
This is just libel.
They're defaming these kids.
This is a false story, a story that they know is false.
And I can only hope that New York Daily News is sued and run into bankruptcy.
And I can tell you that The world would be better off without, I mean, the New York Daily News has never contributed anything of value to the world or to journalism or anything.
But here's what they have to say.
They say, I'll read a little bit from this news article.
It says, this won't help Kentucky student, not Nick Sandman's case.
A photo said to be featuring Covington Catholic High School students clad in blackface during a 2015 basketball game made the rounds on Twitter Monday morning amid last week's Indigenous Peoples March controversy.
The photo depicts several white students, some in blackface, shouting at an opposing black player.
While the photo's origins couldn't be verified, the official Covington Catholic High School YouTube account published a video last January boasting its basketball school spirit, and several clips, including one from 2012, showcase attendees chanting in blackface, a mockery of the opposing players.
So not only are they claiming that the students were in blackface, but they're claiming in this news article that they're wearing blackface to mock the opposing player.
So they've come up even with a motivation behind this act, which they've inserted as fact into their article.
Again, I mean, New York Daily News needs to be sued into oblivion.
This is defamatory.
This is simply false.
So what is this all about?
Well, first of all, let's look at here's the picture in question.
Take a look at it right now.
So there it is.
So you notice how everybody is in black, right?
Everyone's wearing black.
And then some are wearing black paint.
Others are in all black clothing.
So what was the point of that?
Was it a wear-your-racist-costume-to-the-basketball-day at Covington Catholic?
Which the school then videoed and put online proudly for everyone to see?
Like, hey guys, look at our racist event!
Come take a look at this!
This is great!
Look at our racism, folks!
Look at this!
Is that what happened?
Now, I don't doubt that leftists would actually believe that a Catholic school would do something like that.
That there would be a Catholic school conspiring in a mass act of random racism.
But anyone with, say, a third of a functioning brain would know that that is completely ridiculous and knows that there must be more to the story, and there is.
So this is what's known as a blackout game, okay?
Many schools do this.
It's very common.
It happens all across the country.
Everybody wears black.
That's what a blackout game is.
That's all it is.
Everyone is just in the same color.
And then if you get the bird's-eye view of the stadium, Or if you see everyone sitting in the bleachers, it looks kind of cool that everyone is in the same color, everyone's in black.
They also have whiteout games.
They have games where everyone wears blue.
Okay?
So that's it.
That's the whole story.
And if everyone wearing black is blackface, then I guess when they all wear white, for a whiteout game, it's whiteface.
And if they all wear blue, it's blueface.
In other words, to call it blackface is a lie.
It is a libelous lie.
Why are they screaming at the black player?
Well, because it's a basketball game, you drooling dimwits.
It's a basketball game.
That's what the home fans do at a game.
They yell and they taunt the opposing players.
Not because they're black, but because they're the opposing player.
This is what the fans of the home team have done in every basketball and football and hockey game that has ever been played anywhere on earth in history.
This is just what they do.
So all these people are looking at this picture saying, oh my gosh, look at them yelling at that player.
I saw someone on Twitter said it was, I forget the phrase he used.
He said it was something like looking into the heart of evil or some phrase like that.
This is someone who apparently has never left their house, never turned on a TV, never seen any sort of sporting event that they would see.
Look, they're raising their... They appear to be taunting that player in a different colored jersey.
This... I don't under... Well, I never... You notice how leftists become these sort of fainting Victorian era, you know, damsels in distress so easily.
I mean, usually these are the people who have no problem with, you know, vulgarity.
They have no problem with... I mean, they're the ones accusing everyone else of being Puritans.
But then they see something like this and they go, oh my gosh, I can't believe it.
It's just, it's called, it's a sport, okay?
These are kids, these are high school kids at a sport getting rowdy, that's what they do.
You lying, lying frauds.
You... I mean, this whole thing makes me so angry because the lies are just so blatant.
And they know what they're doing.
These people know what they're doing.
They aren't stupid, okay?
They aren't so stupid that they don't understand the concept of a high school basketball game and what goes on in there.
They aren't so dumb that they don't understand the idea that sometimes everyone wears the same color to a basketball game.
No, they aren't.
I know I call them drooling dimwits, but actually I'm doing them a huge favor with that.
I mean, that is a huge compliment.
Because either they are drooling dimwits or they are despicable evil people who are lying about these kids and trying to get them at a minimum expelled, if not killed.
Because these kids are getting death threats, there are bomb threats going to the school.
And now you're jumping in with this lie as well.
So either you are a total moron, or you are evil.
And you are trying to get these kids hurt with a lie.
Those are the only two options.
There are no other options here.
At this point.
They know exactly what they're doing.
In the words of Marco Rubio, let's dispel with the fiction that they don't know what they're doing.
They know exactly what they're doing.
By the way, speaking of bad people, Nathan Phillips has, according to the Cincinnati Inquirer, has turned down an offer to sit down and meet with the students.
There's a local restaurant that had offered to have a kind of breaking bread session between the two sides, and Nathan Phillips Said that, well, now's not the right time for that.
He's not going to do it.
But in the same interview, he did insinuate that now he would be possibly in favor of the kids getting expelled.
He said, you know, originally I wasn't, I'm paraphrasing, but he said, originally I wasn't in favor of them getting expelled, but now I have to revisit that.
And, of course, he does want various staff to be fired.
So he wants the kids to be expelled.
He wants the staff to be fired.
And this is the hero that the left has given us, this Nathan Phillips character, who, again, is a liar, a fraud, and a bully who is picking on these kids.
One other point to make here.
The left... Now, I want you to remember something here.
So we had this...
Incident on Saturday.
But think back to what happened last week and how the left spent much of last week attacking Karen Pence because she got a job at a Christian school.
Then by the end of the week, expose Christian schools was a hashtag trending on Twitter.
He had the, attacking Karen Pence for the Christian school and then hashtag expose Christian schools.
And this was just a hashtag where a bunch of people were complaining about Christian schools.
And then on Saturday, a false narrative was quickly constructed claiming that a group of students from a Catholic school harassed and taunted a Native American man.
Now, I don't think that all of these events came together coincidentally.
It's very interesting that Expose Christian Schools, that was the hashtag trending on Friday, and then the thing happens on Saturday, so if you go and you check that hashtag now, you're gonna see a whole bunch of tweets about Covington.
Because the hashtag fits in really nicely with this story.
Except the hashtag came along before the story.
We have, as I wrote last week, we have officially entered a new phase of the culture war and gone officially are the days when leftists pretend to see religion as this sort of thing that should be relegated to homes and churches and private schools.
That was a very small amount of extremely limited and qualified tolerance that they had and that is now gone.
They will not tolerate Christianity in any forum, especially a private school.
So if you go and you look at that hashtag that I was talking about, it is filled with open, unapologetic hatred for Christian schools as an institution, for the very idea of Christian schools.
This is the pattern with the left.
This is sort of the trajectory, I should say.
But the pattern is very interesting.
Maybe you've noticed this, but they tend to find these perfectly timed real-world examples to demonstrate whatever point they were already making.
Have you noticed that?
So, think about in the wake of Donald Trump's election.
They were wringing their hands and saying that this is going to embolden racists and bigots and there's going to be hate crimes and everything.
And just like that, reports of hate crimes come pouring in.
And so for the first few months after Donald Trump's election, you were hearing about these hate crime reports all the time.
Now, of course, many of those hate crimes proved to be hoaxes, but that's a minor detail as far as the left is concerned.
And then think about Ferguson.
You know, Ferguson happened, and we were told that white supremacist police officers are on the prowl, you know, hunting down innocent black men.
And just like that, high-profile cases of police brutality presented themselves.
And it was just this rash of cases like this, and there were riots across the country, and all these differences.
It was one city after another, one incident after another.
Now, again, many of those cases were not legitimate examples of police brutality, but the truth or falsehood of the case is irrelevant to leftists, obviously.
And then this week, We were told that Christian schools are nests of bigotry and intolerance, and then what do you know?
Video surfaces of kids at a Christian school verbally assaulting a Native American man.
I mean, they couldn't have scripted it any better, could they?
Now, I'm not suggesting.
That this is all part of some sort of coordinated master plan.
I don't think that these incidents are all engineered by some shadowy, devious figure behind the scenes who's sitting behind a big oak desk stroking his white cat, you know, and plotting all of these various scenarios.
The conspiracy, if we can call it that, is much less cinematic in scope and much less dramatic and involves Very little actual conspiring.
Because the media is already on the same page.
There is no need for them to have a meeting and get together and say, hey, you know, we've been talking about this, now let's go find an example.
They don't need to say that out loud, it's just kind of understood that that's what they're going to do.
They decide what sort of events, what sort of incidents will be reported, and then which elements of those incidents and events will be highlighted.
So then, Something like the Covington Catholic story is seized upon and exploited and retroactively kind of molded to fit with the narrative that they'd already established.
That's the way this works.
Now, If the media and the left had not already been hammering on this point about Christian schools, then it's possible that this thing that happened in D.C.
wouldn't have gotten as much attention or wouldn't have gotten any attention.
And obviously, if you change the demographics around and it doesn't feature white males, then it would have gotten no attention whatsoever.
But it just so happens that it fits so perfectly with what they were talking about.
At least if you take it out of context and you lie about certain elements of the story, certain crucial elements, then it fits so well.
So that's why they took it and they fit it in.
So it's not that Nathan Phillips was conspiring with George Soros or something.
This is just something that happened.
And the left and the media knew what to do with it.
They took it and they fit it into what they were already talking about.
But there's always a point with these narratives and these themes when they hammer on them.
And the left has not gone through the trouble of painting Christian schools as dangerous hate factories for no reason.
They intend to do something with it.
They're going to use the fruits of their labor to some end.
And that end, I think, will become very clear very soon.
Okay, now before we get to emails, I want to mention this from ABC News.
The University of Notre Dame will cover murals in a campus building that depicts Christopher Columbus in America, the school's president said, following criticism that the images depict Native Americans in stereotypical submissive poses before white European explorers.
The 12 murals were created in the 1880s by Louise Grigori, and they were intended to encourage immigrants who had come to the U.S.
during a period of anti-Catholic sentiment, but they conceal another side of Columbus, the exploitation and repression of Native Americans, according to the Reverend John Jenkins, president of Notre Dame.
So they're going to cover up these.
Now here's what's going to be, and I just want to mention this because this is just so emblematic of the way that cowardly Christians deal with things these days.
So what he's doing is he's not getting rid of the murals, which, again, this is art made in the 19th century for Notre Dame, given to them, and so he's not going to just throw them away.
Instead, he's going to cover the murals And he indicated that sometimes maybe he would uncover them on certain occasions, and then eventually they'll find somewhere else on the campus to put the murals.
So they're not getting rid of them, they're going to put them somewhere else.
So what he's done here, and this is just what cowardly Christians always do, he's come up with a compromise that actually satisfies no one.
So he's caving to pressure from the left, from society, from the world.
He's caving to the pressure.
But he's not even doing what they want, so they're still going to be mad at him.
And then meanwhile, those who don't want him to cave are also going to be mad.
So he's just upset everyone and accomplished nothing.
This is what happens when you start trying to compromise and you give up on your principles and you start caving and surrendering and everything.
You're not even going to satisfy the people who are coming after you.
The people who you are bowing before and saying, oh yes, yes, please, please, oh master, master.
The people that you're doing that to, they're not going to be happy.
So you just end up, you end up with a, it's a lose-lose.
Meanwhile, I'm not going to get off on another tangent about Christopher Columbus, but as someone who's actually read about him and studied Columbus, I still find him to be one of the great men of Western civilization, obviously one of the pioneers and initial builders of Western civilization.
Not a perfect man, a complex man.
And men who did great things at any point in history, but especially back in those days, the great men who did great things and accomplished great things, they were always complex.
They always had sides to them that were less, shall we say, savory.
And part of that is because if you wanted to get on a ship with a bunch of other guys and sail across uncharted waters and go to this unknown wilderness and try to build a civilization from scratch, which is something that none of us, we can't even conceive of that.
None of us have ever done that or ever seen that happen.
We can't even wrap our minds around what that even entails.
To get on a ship with a bunch of supplies and then say, you know, we're going to just sail and hope that we find land and we're going to build a civilization.
How about that?
None of us can even, I mean, all the people that sit there and say, well, he shouldn't have done it that way.
Well, he shouldn't have done that.
That part right there, that was no good.
Meanwhile, none of us, we can't even find our local Rite Aid without a GPS.
And we're sitting here criticizing.
But in order to do that, you had to have certain characteristics, and you also had to be a very harsh and severe sort of man, and also brutal.
It was kind of necessary.
Now, that doesn't excuse the bad things that Columbus did or the bad things that anyone did throughout history, but it does put it within a certain context.
That if you want to be an intelligent person and you want to study history and you want to have a mature perspective on history and not a childish one, then you have to understand the context.
But one way or another, Christopher Columbus, the early explorers, discoverers, pioneers, settlers.
These are the people who built the civilization that you and I now live in.
And we are enjoying the fruits of their labor.
We are feasting on the banquet that they provided us.
And even as we do that, like brats, we sit and we whine about them and complain and insult them.
Well, you know, I know it's a cliché to say, if you don't like it, get out of America.
But sometimes I think that response is wholly appropriate, and I think it applies to this.
Unless you're a hypocrite or an intellectual coward, if you really think that our civilization is built Fundamentally on genocide and evil and slavery and all these things, if that's really what you think, and you think we have no right to even be here, and we stole all this land and we're thieves and criminals and everything, then you should leave.
For you to think that and yet stay here and benefit from the privileges that those genocidal maniacs gave you, that makes you just incomprehensibly cowardly.
If you really feel that way, then you must leave and go live somewhere else.
I really mean that.
You have to.
You can't possibly stay here while thinking that.
It would be like if...
If your friend invited you over for a house party, and then you come into the house, you say, wow, this is a really nice house, a great party, and he's giving you a fee, and then you find out, you say, when did you buy this house?
And your friend says to you, oh, you know, no, there was another family living here, and actually, I just came in and killed all of them, and they're buried out back, but anyway, the fruit punch is in the kitchen.
Now, if your friend said that to you, you would leave the house, right?
You wouldn't just say, oh, okay, well, you know what?
I disapprove, but let me go get some of that fruit punch.
You wouldn't do that.
You would leave the house, and then you would call the police, right?
Now, I don't think that that analogy is at all similar to what the early settlers and explorers did.
But the point is, liberals, that is how they think of it.
They think it's exactly like that.
Yet they're staying in the house party!
Cowards!
Okay, now, to the inbox.
If you want to send a message to the show, ask a question, offer a comment, compliment me, insult me, or anything else, you can email mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com, mattwalshow at gmail.com.
You can also get a hold of me through Facebook and Twitter and a million other means, but I'm trying to consolidate things here, so as best I can.
From Andy, he says, Oh, I lost that one.
Justin writes, you're number two next to Ben in my daily subscription.
Sometimes a better show than his even.
I hope he's paying you well.
Watch out, Michael Knowles.
Thank you, Justin.
My great goal in life is to be second place, so I appreciate that.
No, I do appreciate it.
Thank you.
From Logan, what does the left have correct that the right is failing to understand?
That is a great, great question.
What does the left have correct that the right is failing to understand?
I like that question.
I think there's a big one.
I've talked about this before.
They understand, I think, what sorts of issues will fire people up and motivate people.
They know how to get to people's hearts and to win hearts.
And they know that you need to win the heart first and then the mind.
It's heart then mind, right?
Which, as I pointed out, is something that conservatives tend to not understand.
So conservatives will go on and on about things like tax policy and jobs and so on, which are important, obviously, but you're not going to build movements around them.
At least not these days.
You won't.
Even something like immigration.
Okay, really important issue, an issue that lots of people care about, obviously, and for good reason.
But I'll tell you this, if you had a march on Washington for or against illegal immigration, you're not going to get even a fraction of what the March for Life gets every single year.
Okay, the March for Life pulls three, four hundred, five hundred thousand people.
You're not going to get those kinds of numbers for an immigration march.
You just won't.
I mean, you might get a thousand, ten thousand, maybe, if you promote it really well, because Abortion, you know, the social issues, the cultural issues, these are the issues that speak to people at the most intrinsic kind of level, and they have a very deep philosophical dimension to them.
Because they get down to the meaning and purpose of life and of society and of human existence.
And so those are the questions that we all think about.
Those are the things we care about.
Those are the things that we order our lives around, right?
You know, there are many pro-lifers who have ordered their life around their conviction that life is sacred and valuable and that abortion is horrible and needs to be outlawed.
There are not as many people who have centered their life around immigration.
Although there are some who specialize in that issue, but not nearly as many.
Because these are the most fundamental, most important, most central kinds of issues.
And this is where our primary focus should be.
Liberals understand that.
And that's why they've been so effective in, you know, claiming the culture for themselves.
Notice by the way how long it took, just as an example, notice how long it took conservatives to figure out that this gender stuff, transgenderism and all that, notice how long it took them to figure out that this was something they needed to pay attention to.
I remember when I was writing my book, The Unholy Trinity, Which you can find in bookstores today or on Amazon.
And I talk a lot about transgenderism in that book.
And I remember I was pitching that to the publisher and the publisher told me, when I was originally talking about the book with them, they said, well, yeah, but the transgenderism thing, are people really going to care about that by the time the book comes out?
And I said, yeah, they're going to care about it.
This is an issue now.
This is a thing people care about.
And it just took conservatives a long time to figure that out.
Aaron writes, Matt, I agree with you about the Covenant Catholic situation, but here's my thing.
The response from church leadership has been terrible.
My own diocese denounced the boys as soon as it happened.
I've seen many priests and bishops on social media denouncing them too.
This seems like total cowardice to me.
What do you think?
I think you said it well, Aaron, and I totally agree with you.
You're like a hipster John the Baptist, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
I only want to hear about Ben Shapiro.
Why did the Daily Wire feel the need to hire an apocalyptic preacher?
You're like a hipster John the Baptist, and I don't mean that as a compliment.
I only want to hear about Ben Shapiro.
I don't care about you.
Well, Joe, you don't mean that as a compliment, but I actually take it as one.
A hipster John the Baptist.
You know, I don't think I'm a hipster, but I love it.
I think I might have to put that on my Twitter bio.
From William, he says, Matt, have you heard of the economic school of thought known as distributism?
Thomas E. Woods Jr.
of the Mises Institute describes distributists as believing that social system is best in which productive property is widely dispersed rather than concentrated.
G.K.
Chesterton, perhaps the most well-known and respected advocate of distributism, famously said, too much capitalism does not mean too many capitalists, but too few.
Proponents of the Austrian and Chicago schools of economics usually criticize distributors of trying to sneak in socialism to the back door because of their insistence that as many workers as possible ought to own the means of their own labor.
And then he asks, what do you make of distributism?
Thanks for that, William.
I'm a little familiar with distributism.
I love Chesterton, and so anything he says I think should be taken seriously.
I think the comparison to socialism is off base.
Because the point of distributism is precisely to make sure that everyone owns property.
Private property is the point, private ownership.
And that is not communal ownership, but actual private ownership, as in actual individuals owning their own land and their own means of production.
Now, I think of this as less of an economic system and more of sort of a philosophical, more of a philosophy.
Chesterton's point, I think, is that the best thing, the most moral, the most human thing is for everyone to own something, to own land, to own means of production, not own as a community, not own as a state or through the state, but actually own for themselves privately.
And I think Chesterton was horrified by a world where so few people actually owned anything.
And he thought, well, that's just, that's not human.
Humans should own things.
And I agree with that.
The problem, of course, is that there's no way to get...
To there, with everybody owning their own chunk of land and their own means of production, there's no way to get there from where we are without the government confiscating everything and then kind of redistributing it as they see fit, which obviously would be insane and terrible and cataclysmic and tyrannical and awful.
So there's no way anyone could support that and there's no way it would ever happen.
But look, here's what I'll say about distributors.
If, and I think that this is not a far-fetched scenario, if the whole world comes crumbling down and there's some sort of apocalyptic event and civilization is reduced to ash and then a few survivors are left and we're looking at rebuilding society, rebuilding civilization, and we all get together and we say, what sort of economic system should we start with?
I think then, starting from scratch, maybe you could look at distributism as a model.
Tyson says, hey Matt, I'll keep this short.
At school, my history teacher is very left-leaning and we've been discussing illegal immigration.
I am in full support of the wall and trying to minimize these people from coming into our country.
Every time the topic comes up, his argument or deflection when I state my opinion is always, well, did your family come here legally?
And I honestly do not know the answer to that question.
I am wondering what a good response to combat the question is instead of leaving me stuck.
Tyson, the first answer is that it's irrelevant.
Even if your family did come here illegally, which, I mean, I assume you know if they did or didn't, but whether they did or didn't, that's got nothing to do with the issue.
The issue is whether or not we should protect the border, whether or not we should have immigration laws.
So when someone says, well, what about you?
What did you do?
What about your family?
Okay, that can speak to your own personal credibility or whatever, maybe, but it has nothing to do with the issue.
So even if somebody could prove that you're a hypocrite, that doesn't mean that you're wrong about what you're saying.
So that is a way of deflecting.
It's a way of not engaging with the argument.
So the first thing I would say when your teacher says that is, okay, I don't know about my family, but can we stick to the issue?
Can you stop deflecting from the issue?
Let's talk about the issue.
And secondly, this idea that we're all ancestors of illegal immigrants is, of course, ridiculous and false.
My family came here, I don't know, 70 years ago.
They came here legally, so the claim just doesn't make any sense to begin with.
Allison writes, Matt, I go to CPAC every year, and I always expect you to be there, but you never are.
Will you be there this year?
Will you be speaking?
Well, Allison, I'd love to be at CPAC, but I've never been invited.
Sniff.
Tear.
But I mean, if you really wanted me to speak at CPAC, which again, I'd love to do, you could always reach out to CPAC on Twitter and say, hey, invite Matt Walsh or something.
I don't know.
I mean, it's something that you could do if you really wanted to.
Finally, Max says, Matt, Your comment that LeBron James is the best basketball player of all time was insane.
Well, that's not the end of the discussion.
Michael Jordan was in the league for, I think, 16 years.
He only went to the finals six times.
That means that he missed the finals 10 times.
LeBron James has been in the league, I think, also for 16 years.
And he's on his 16th year.
I believe he's been to the finals nine times already.
So this idea that we're giving Jordan credit for losing before the finals.
Oh, he's undefeated in the finals.
He missed it 10 times.
He lost.
You know why he was undefeated?
Because he lost before he got to the finals 10 times.
How is that better?
How is it more clutch to lose before the finals than to lose in the finals?
That doesn't make any sense.
And of course, when you're dealing with a finals record thing, You're not factoring in, number one, in 2007, LeBron James went to the finals and he dragged a team that, without him, would not even have sniffed the playoffs.
And he dragged them on his own to the finals.
The fact that he lost there is irrelevant.
Just making it is one of the most impressive feats in modern sports history.
And then also, LeBron James has three times played the best team in the history of the game.
Jordan never played a team like the Warriors.
Never.
He never played a team that had... I mean, the Warriors have three of the best scorers in the league on the same team.
And Jordan never played a team quite like that.
So, I still say that LeBron James is the best basketball player of all time.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
We'll leave it there.
Thanks for listening.
Talk to you tomorrow.
Goodbye and Godspeed.
♪♪ Hi everyone, I'm Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan
Show.
You know, the new young Democrats are attractive, appealing, idealistic, ignorant, and vicious.
And they're about to destroy America.
It is our job to stop them.
We'll be talking about that later on today on The Andrew Klavan Show.
▲
Export Selection