All Episodes
Previous Next
June 24, 2019 - The Matt Walsh Show
37:01
Ep. 282 - Did Ilhan Omar Marry Her Brother?

Today on the show, Rep Ilhan Omar stands accused of marrying her brother to skirt our immigration laws. Are the claims true? Well, there’s plenty of smoke, we’ll say. Also, President Trump has been again accused of sexual assault. There are some very weird things about this latest accusation, though. We'll take a look at it today. Date: 06-24-2019 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, Representative Ilhan Omar stands accused of marrying her brother in order to skirt our immigration laws.
Are the claims true?
Well, there's plenty of smoke.
Is there a fire?
I don't know, but we'll look at the evidence.
We'll look at this case today.
It's very complicated, very weird, but it's important.
So we'll talk about that today.
Also, we'll look at something else.
President Trump is accused again of sexual assault.
And I think that there's reason to be skeptical of this accusation.
There are some things about it that don't make a lot of sense, but we'll talk about that today also on The Matt Walsh Show.
All right, I hope you all had a great weekend.
My weekend was pretty good, though I did make a mistake that I feel like I should tell you about, kind of a cautionary tale.
I told my kids, the twins, who are kindergarten age, That they could watch the movie King Kong?
Over the weekend.
Not the really old ones, but the one from 2005 directed by Peter Jackson.
And I saw it when it first came out, but that was like 15 years ago almost.
So it's been a long time.
My memory of the movie is that it was kind of a family adventure, family friendly, nice little safe flick that kids of all ages could enjoy.
That's my memory of it when I saw it 15 years ago.
So the point is that I vouched for it with my wife.
I told my kids they could watch King Kong, they were super excited, and then my wife said, I don't know about that, is that appropriate?
I said, it's fine, don't worry about it, I saw it, no big deal, it's fine.
I guess it had been so long that I forgot how scary and violent it is in certain parts, and much more than I remembered.
And it looked like the kids were being slightly traumatized by some of the scenes.
So I was fast.
I was Johnny on the spot with the fast-forward button, making sure to get through the scarier parts so that they were still watching them, but just faster.
So I figured that's not as bad.
Anyway, I fast-forwarded most of the bad parts, except I forgot about a part, because it happens very quickly towards the end, where King Kong bites off a guy's head.
Almost like an old-fashioned grenade.
He bites off the head, spits the head out, throws the body.
I forgot that that happened.
It just didn't register me at the time.
And I didn't... I wasn't able to fast-forward.
And the real problem, though, is that my wife, who had not been watching the movie at all this entire time with us, she happens to walk in right before that happens and sits down and says, well, I'll watch it with you.
And then the head-biting thing happens.
My son, of course, loves it.
He's, oh, King Kong just bit off a guy's head.
Did you see that, Mommy?
And I'm sitting there like, kid, just stop.
Don't, don't, don't.
And my wife gives me that look.
You know, it's a very specific look that your wife gives you.
It's a very specific, you-let-the-kids-watch-something-inappropriate look.
And so I'm getting that look.
Not a good look, but what I tried to argue is that kids You have to be exposed to this reality at some point, right?
The fact that gorillas bite people's heads off, that's something that would you rather they learn it on the streets?
Is that what you want?
You want them to go out there and learn it the hard way?
That 40-foot gorillas could bite your head off?
No, this is something that they need to learn in a safe environment at home so that we could teach them that yes, sometimes gorillas bite people's heads off.
Important life lesson.
So if you see a 40-foot gorilla, just avoid him.
You know?
Or wear a helmet.
I guess that wouldn't help much if your head is detached from your body.
Anyway.
Okay, before we go any further, we need to talk briefly about Duke Cannon.
You know, using soap every day is a good idea.
It makes you, I think, a well-kempt person.
Your loved ones, your friends, and people around you will thank you for practicing good hygiene.
But, you know, it also makes you a patriot.
Especially if you're using Duke Cannon.
Consider this, Duke Cannon's superior quality grooming goods for hardworking men are tested by soldiers.
Duke Cannon partners with active duty military to develop new ideas and review products.
Anything that doesn't meet the high standards of our military just goes to the cutting room floor.
It's not happening.
Duke Cannon is committed to giving back to the men and women serving our country.
That's why a portion of their proceeds Go directly to support veterans' causes.
Duke Cannon sells everything you need, nothing you don't.
Big-ass brick of soap.
That's modeled after the rough-cut brick-style soap used by GIs during the Korean War.
And it's, well, it's a big-ass brick of soap, just exactly how it sounds.
They've also got the best damn beard wash, which is the best damn beard wash.
What I like about it is that the messaging is very straightforward.
It tells you exactly what's going on here.
And as men, I think we appreciate that.
Just tell me what it is.
Okay, don't get some cute name for the soap.
What is this?
Oh, it's a big-ass brick of soap.
Okay, that's what I'm looking for.
So thank you very much.
Now, when you're using Duke Cannon's big-ass brick of soap or premium hair goods that give you the news anchor thick hair or beard wash or whatever it is, don't be surprised if you feel yourself this sudden urge to sing the national anthem.
Or if maybe a bald eagle swoops down to smell your luscious hair, which would be a little creepy, but it's been known to happen.
Visit DukeCanon right now and get 15% off your first order with promo code WALSH.
That's DukeCanon.com.
Free shipping on orders over $35.
All right.
The Star Tribune, the paper in Minneapolis, ran a story over the weekend about Representative Ilhan Omar.
Here's the lead of the story.
It says, new investigative documents released by a state agency have given fresh life to lingering questions about the marital history of Representative Ilhan Omar and whether she once married a man, possibly her own brother, to skirt immigration laws.
Now, that's not an accusation that you hear every day against politicians, is it?
That's not one.
That's a new one.
The Star Tribune has apparently been ignoring this story for a long time, for years really, months or years they've been ignoring it.
They're the local, that's Minneapolis, and Ilhan Omar, of course, is representative for Minnesota,
so they're sort of the local crew there.
And during the campaign, they didn't talk about it, they didn't talk about it.
They're only coming out with it now because they have no choice,
because the evidence is piling up and they have to say something to acknowledge it.
And I tell you that just because there are some conservatives who I saw over the weekend
seemed like they were tempted to give the Star Tribune some credit and say,
oh, well, this is a liberal rag, but yeah, they've done some real journalism here,
and give them credit for that.
No, don't give them any credit.
They only did it because they absolutely had to, and they tried not to.
They don't want to.
They did because they had to.
Is it true, though?
That's really the main point here.
That's what matters.
Is it true?
I guess we don't know, right?
We don't know exactly if it is or not.
It would be a serious crime if it is true, and it would also be really creepy and weird that you married your brother, but we can't say for sure.
There is a lot of smoke, and the thing is, it's a very peculiar—peculiar, I should say.
Peculiar.
It's a very peculiar type of smoke.
It's a really weird smoke.
It's a smoke that indicates that you married your brother.
If you didn't marry your brother, why would there be any smoke at all in that direction?
You see what I'm saying?
Most of us have never married our brothers, right?
I haven't married my brother, you haven't married yours, not something most people do.
And if you've never married your brother, there probably is not going to be any reason for anyone to ever think you did.
It's just, it's not something that will ever come up.
You're never going to have to deny it.
If you're in a position where you have to deny that you married your brother, That probably means, at a minimum, that something really weird is happening.
Right?
Now, there are some accusations that politicians face all the time.
There are the more kind of par-for-the-course accusations that almost everyone faces, or politicians of a certain type are more likely to face.
And in that case, well, then you really have to look at it, look at the evidence.
Maybe they did it, maybe they didn't.
You have to look at the evidence here also, but the very fact that there is any evidence is itself a piece of evidence, a pretty damning piece of evidence, that she did it.
Although, who knows?
It's a claim that really, on the surface, seems so bizarre and outlandish that a lot of even conservatives, myself included, have sort of ignored it up until this point because we all just assumed it was some rumor started on an internet forum somewhere, but apparently that's not the case.
A reading now from the Daily Wire report on this story says, newly discovered official documents released on Sunday suggest that Representative Ilhan Omar lived with her current husband, Ahmed Hirzi, during the entire time that she was legally married, To Ahmed Elmi, the man that critics allege is her brother.
The Washington Examiner reports that Omar tells her marital history the following way.
2002, Omar married Hirsi in a faith ceremony, but never legally married.
2008, Omar and Hirsi decided to end our relationship in our faith tradition.
Early 2009, Omar legally married Elmi.
Very confusing.
It's kind of the worst soap opera ever, it sounds like.
divorced. 2011 Omar and Hirsi reconciled. 2017 Omar and Elmi belatedly obtained
their legal divorce. 2018 Omar and Hirsi legally married.
Very confusing it's kind of the worst soap opera ever it sounds like. The
report goes on Omar's timeline of events appears to conflict with newly
uncovered documents from the Washington examiners Tiana Lowe who notes that the
evidence suggests that Omar has always been in a marital relationship with
Hirsi even when she was married to Elmi.
It goes into the public documents that they found.
I'm tempted to read this entire report.
I'm not going to do that.
Because it is very complicated, difficult to explain.
I would, Kurt, just go to dailywire.com and look it up and read for yourself.
There's a lot of, there are many documents here that flesh all this out that I'm not going to read the specifics of, but you could go and look at it for yourself.
This all ties into, you know, she's also, she was the subject of a campaign finance violation probe.
So that's tied into this.
And so we've got campaign finance violations, potentially.
We've got her defrauding the immigration system, potentially.
There's also another crime potentially on the list here, and that would be perjury.
I'm trying to find at the very end of the article it gets into.
Omar swore In court, that she has no contact with Elmy, her alleged brother and former husband, apparently.
No contact with him, doesn't know where he is, doesn't know anyone in his family, can't get a hold of him.
That's what she swore to the court.
But there's reason to believe, based on other documents, that that's not true either.
And that, in fact, she lied even then.
So, this is all just Crazy, and devastating for the Democrats, which is why they're ignoring it.
And it's why the liberal media wants nothing to do with this, because not only is she a Democrat, of course, and she's one of the fresh faces of the Democrat Party, and she's kind of a rising star of the Democrat Party, but for it to turn out that she herself committed immigration fraud, that would be remarkable.
Especially when this is something that Republicans are talking about all the time, how you have people defrauding our immigration system.
Democrats are saying, oh, that's not really a problem.
No one's doing that.
And then one of your own people, one of the most visible, a rising star of the Democratic Party, herself is guilty of it?
Potentially?
Allegedly?
Well, that's devastating for them.
What's even more devastating, though, I think, for me to think about, is that As bizarre as all this is, and as horrible as it would be if it's true, I think it will have no effect on her politically.
Because we know, for one, the media is not going to report it.
They're running cover for her.
And so Democrats can always rely on that, they can always count on that, that the media is going to cover for them.
But, so I think a lot of her constituents, a lot of voters will never hear about it.
Even if they did hear about it, though.
In fact, even if Omar came out and admitted and said, yeah, I married my brother, what of it?
Hey, love is love.
Or if she said, or if she said, I think a better angle for her would be, listen, the immigration system is unjust.
It's impossible to get through.
I was, you know, I needed to come here for the sake of my family.
My family needed to come to the United States and it was my only option.
And so this is America's fault.
This is the fault of the system for forcing me, as an immigrant woman, to make this difficult choice to marry my brother.
She could easily go with that, she could admit it and go with that angle, and I think she would get away with it.
Because her constituents don't, they have no respect for our immigration system, they don't care about it.
And by her, I mean, when I say her, I should say not her constituents, but specifically her voters, her supporters, have no respect for our immigration system.
They don't care about it.
They have no respect for the truth and don't care about that.
So the fact that she lied and committed fraud, they don't care about that either.
And so she could easily get away with this.
And that probably is the most depressing thing of all.
Even more depressing than someone marrying their brother.
Okay, a couple of other brief things, both Twitter-related, unfortunately.
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez tweeted something over the weekend that got 172,000 likes.
And you'll understand why I'm reading this in a minute when you hear it, because it's so powerful and brave and insightful.
And that's why 172,000 people liked it.
172,000 people liked it. She said, I have absolutely zero patience for completely certified
card-carrying Flag-waving racists none. They can take their little tiki
torches somewhere else We don't give them an inch a second a sliver of sunlight
nor the time of day and neither should you Wow
So so brave I mean, the courage.
The courage it took to write this.
You know, to come out against racism.
To say, I don't like racism.
I'm against racism.
I am anti-racism.
Racism?
I want no part of it.
I can't fathom the courage it takes for someone to say this.
Because all the rest of us, we're all like, oh, racism?
I plead the fifth.
I don't want to talk about that.
I'm not going to tell you how I feel about racism.
I don't want to get into that subject.
That's what the rest of us say, right?
Because we're so afraid to take this bold stand of coming out against racism.
This woman is fearless.
My God, she is a firecracker, isn't she?
And I especially liked how she's coming out against completely certified racists.
So if you've got your racist certification and your card, you know, your little business card, I'm a racist, how are you?
With your contact information.
Because if you meet another racist, then you need to, oh, you're a racist, too?
Which racists do you hate?
Oh, really?
Me, too?
Well, here's my business card.
Look me up sometime.
Give me a call.
We'll talk.
Anyway, so she's specifically coming out against those people.
They're certified.
They're licensed.
And she's saying, no thanks.
You folks, get out of my face.
Incredible courage.
All right, and then we have a reporter on Twitter.
Olivia Nuzzi relaying a scene from a Planned Parenthood event where some Democratic candidates showed up to this Planned Parenthood event, speaking of courage, really facing a hostile audience there, and they took questions from people in the crowd at this event.
And here's how she describes it, Olivia.
She says, at Planned Parenthood event, a non-binary activist just asked Castro, How he'll expand sexual and reproductive health for trans people, Julian Castro.
Castro responds by first asking which pronoun the activist prefers.
They replied, I actually don't use any pronoun.
Which received some applause.
Now, I love that sentence.
I don't use any pronoun.
The whole non-binary choose my own pronoun thing is exposed for the joke that it is in just that one sentence.
I don't use any pronouns.
I don't use any pronouns.
Oh, I actually don't like pronouns.
You see the problem there?
Yes, you do use pronouns because I is a pronoun.
So you do use them.
Of course you do.
You wouldn't be able to communicate if you didn't at least use a pronoun like I. You need to be able to refer to yourself as I or you wouldn't be able to communicate.
Just like we need to be able to use words like he and she in order to communicate as well.
Otherwise, if we can't use a word like he or she when referring to you, When talking about you to someone else, which is usually when the words he and she come up, if we're talking to you, then there probably isn't any reason to say he or she, but if we're talking about you to someone else, if we're relaying some information about you, telling a story about you, we need to have a pronoun.
Because then otherwise we'd have to say something.
It would be like, so I saw Bob today and Bob told me that when Bob was driving to the store two days ago, Bob got into a car accident and Bob won't get Bob's car back from the shop for a while, you know, etc.
It just becomes utterly ridiculous and just completely silly.
And nonsensical.
But this is what we're expected to do.
We're expected to reduce ourselves to nonsense, to embarrass ourselves, to jump through hoops, to reject the basic rules of grammar, to make idiots of ourselves, to make a mockery of everyday language, everyday communication, all because someone has decreed that they don't like a certain pronoun.
Oh, no, no.
That pronoun is... I don't like that pronoun.
Also, that verb and that adverb, I don't like those either.
Don't use those.
Don't use those in my presence.
And here's a list of 46 nouns you know along.
I don't like those.
Oh, and here's some adjectives I don't like either.
See, you don't get to do that.
You don't make grammatical rules.
And even if we're talking about you, you can't say, well, but certainly if you're talking about me, I can control what you say.
No, you can't.
You don't get to decide what rules of grammar apply when we're talking about you.
It doesn't work that way.
I don't like those pronouns.
Well, okay, great.
It's good for you, you don't like them.
Fantastic.
Thanks for letting me know.
But we're not bending the English language into some distorted shape just to accommodate you.
This, again, as I often point out, is just arrogance.
There is so much in this non-binary, gender, you know, choose your own gender, all that stuff.
There's a lot of confusion.
People are very confused.
A lot of self-loathing involved in it.
So that's all there.
But then there's also a ton of arrogance.
What they want to do is bend the rules of grammar to suit them, make everything a million times harder for everybody else.
So we've got to jump through all these hoops, and we don't know what to say, and we have to sound like morons when we're talking, not using any pronouns at all.
Just making life harder for everybody else, just because it would make you feel better.
So, along with the confusion and the self-loathing, there's also a ton of arrogance in it, which is why I have very little patience for it.
And I think sometimes the correct response to that stuff is just to say, you know what?
Get over yourself.
Really.
I don't use any pronouns.
What?
Oh, man.
Okay.
Now here's something that, uh, that, well, let's see.
A couple other things I wanted to talk about.
Well, let's, let's talk about this first.
Um, I have to mention advice columnist E. Jean Carroll now alleges in a new book, which will be in stores soon, that she was raped by Donald Trump some 20 years ago when they were both in their fifties.
Um, she says it happened in the dressing room of an apartment store.
They went to the dressing room together, consensually.
This is what she says.
Carol says she went there because she wanted to see Trump try on lingerie.
And then he raped her, she says.
But she's not going to press charges because she also says that to press charges would be disrespectful of migrant women.
That's what she said.
What's the connection?
Why?
How would that be disrespectful to my?
So it's if you're raped and you press a charge, just what?
But there's a lot of that.
There's a lot of what in this story.
There's a lot of things that just don't make any sense.
You know that I'm not one to reflexively defend Trump.
If I thought he was guilty, I would say so.
If I thought there was some credibility to these claims, I would say so.
But I have a hard time with this.
Let's start with the fact that she was raped by the now president of the United States.
But said nothing about it until she wrote it in a book.
Saving a rape accusation for a book is just, well, it doesn't help your credibility.
If this actually happened, wouldn't you just come out and say it?
Say it, especially during the campaign, before he's president?
But you write it in a book and you use it to sell the book?
It's hard for me to believe that an actual rape victim would make that choice.
Let's hear Carol herself actually describe the scene.
Here she is on CNN talking about this accusation.
When we walked into the lingerie department, there was nobody there, which is strange.
It was in the evening.
And on the counter were three really fancy boxes and a see-through bodysuit.
He walked right to the bodysuit and snatched it up and said, go put this on.
Now that struck me as so funny, because here I am, 52, I am not going to be put on.
My idea was, I said, no, you put it on.
And he said, no, it looks like it fits you.
I said, no, it goes with your eyes.
So I am spinning a comedy scene in my head.
Of course, banter back and forth.
I get it.
But you see how funny that would be to make him put that on.
Yes.
And you, by the way, used to be a comedy writer on Saturday Night Live.
You were engaging in this banter, as I think many of us would.
Yes.
Because you didn't know what violence was about to unfold, and you could never have known that.
How would I know that?
Of course.
Although, I thought I was pretty stupid.
Well, I mean, I understand that afterwards, in retrospect, you blame yourself.
Many women in this situation do.
Okay, so you notice how Alison Camerota, the CNN anchor there, is literally coaching her through the accusation.
She's framing it for the accuser, helping her to explain it.
She's, you know, walking her through it, giving her answers for any questions that might come up, saying, oh yeah, that's totally normal.
I think she even said, oh, when Carol said that she wanted to go in the dressing room so that Trump could try on see-through lingerie, And didn't Camerata say something like, as anyone would?
As anyone would, really?
Anyone would ask Donald Trump to come into a dressing room and try on see-through lingerie?
I don't think anyone would do that.
I wouldn't.
If I met Donald Trump, that would probably not be something that I would request.
I think most of us wouldn't do that.
So, it's very bizarre.
Now, I could believe That they meet in this department store for whatever reason.
Trump makes a flirtatious, half-joking comment about, hey, try on this.
And then she says, why don't you try it on?
So I could believe that part.
End scene, right there, right?
But then, so she actually goes into the dressing room with him?
So that he could literally try it on?
With her right there in the room with him?
Um, and she says, oh, it's all, it's a comedy scene.
I've, I've, I've hatched a comedy scene.
Oh, this will be hilarious.
Hey, this will be hilarious.
Hey guy.
Hey guy.
I really don't know at all.
Wouldn't it be hilarious if you tried on this lingerie in the dressing room, I'll come in with you, get naked, try it on.
It'll be, it'll be hilarious.
We'll have a great laugh about it.
Um, I, uh, maybe, but maybe that happened.
I, I have a hard time believing it.
It's just really bizarre.
And so you have to apply the principle of, we don't know what happened.
We'll never know for sure.
Now we have to look at the story, see the two possibilities.
One is that she made this up.
The other is that it actually happened.
And then it's simply a matter of, for us, which one is more plausible?
Is it more plausible that this woman randomly decided to go into a dressing room with Donald Trump so he could try on lingerie, that he raped her right there in the middle of the department store, and then she ran away?
She didn't tell anybody about it, publicly anyway, until she wrote it in a book, so she could sell the book.
Is that plausible, or is it more plausible that she just made this up to sell a book?
Or as kind of an in-between option, that she really did have some kind of encounter with Donald Trump that was actually consensual that maybe she then regretted or felt weird about.
And then, you know, so there's also that possible.
Of all those possibilities, which is which is the least plausible?
It seems to me right now.
Barring more evidence being produced, which I don't know what kind of evidence could be produced.
The least plausible option is that it happened exactly as she describes.
In my view.
Alright.
Let's... We've also got Elizabeth Warren now calling for gay reparations.
For reparations for gay people.
Not a joke.
She really is calling for that.
But I think I'll save that for tomorrow.
We'll talk about that tomorrow.
Because I think that deserves...
A closer inspection.
All right, we'll do some emails.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
mattwalshow at gmail.com.
This is from Brad, says, Hey, Matt, is there anything on this planet as narcissistic as the modern day bridal shower?
Please enlighten your audience with a classic Matt Walsh rant.
Well, I don't know if I have a classic Matt Walsh rant for you.
I'm not sure what that what constitutes a classic Matt Walsh rant.
I will say that I think Not just the bridal shower, but the whole wedding scene has
become, of course, and I'm not the first person to point this out, of course, but the whole wedding
scene has become has become incredibly narcissistic and self-centered and, and, and kind of absurd.
And I I mean, we all do it.
I did it.
I had the classic traditional wedding, traditional by our standards today, where you spend more money than you probably need to and it's a whole big production and blah, blah, blah.
So we did it.
It's what most people do.
But yeah, I think it probably is.
I guess I don't have much of a rant at all.
I am just sort of nodding my head in agreement with you.
I think it is more narcissistic and more involved, more expensive than it needs to be.
And so there you go. Not much of a rant. Sorry. This is from Allison says, Matt, huge fan of the
I'm wondering what your thoughts are about the situation in Indy.
So far, three area Catholic schools have been directly impacted by LGBTQ issues and firings related to them.
Earlier this school year, Ronsali High School, I think that's how you pronounce it, fired a guidance counselor after she was outed for being gay.
In the last two days, two other high schools, both more prominent in the Catholic community, were pressured by the archdiocese to fire LGBTQ members.
Why can't these just have normal names that I can pronounce?
I don't sound like a moron.
Brebo, Jesuit Preparatory School, decided not to fire them, was immediately excommunicated from the Archdiocese.
Cathedral High School, shockingly, just days after, made the opposite decision.
I'm a 2010 alum of Cathedral High School who's having a ton of thoughts about this issue.
Here is Cathedral's official explanation, which she links to.
My question to you are these.
Do you think this handling of LGBTQ employees will continue at Catholic institutions nationally?
Do you agree with Cathedral's handling of the situation?
Thanks for your thoughts.
Whether it will be national, it really depends on the diocese.
Do I agree with their handling?
Listen, I don't like to see anybody get fired, but if you're going to work for a Catholic school, and this is something that Catholic schools are up front about at the outset, and I don't know if this is specifically the case here, but in many Catholic schools you have to sign something Swearing that you believe in and will uphold Catholic teaching.
And even if you don't have to sign something.
If you do have to sign it, then to me it's clear cut.
If you signed anything, if you at any point made any kind of official oath to uphold Catholic teaching, and you were lying, Then of course you should be fired.
And I don't care what the issue is, whether it's a gay issue or anything else.
You lied, you got hired under false pretenses, and so of course you should be fired there.
But let's say that you didn't really have to sign anything, but you're still going to work at a Catholic high school, which the job of a Catholic high school, or a Catholic school of any grade, is to Educate kids, but also to instill Catholic values.
And so that's your job.
Your job is, partially at least, and substantially, to help instill Catholic values and an understanding of Catholic teaching.
So you have to know that before you get the job at the Catholic school.
And if you get that job, even though you reject Catholic teaching, Then you're just not suited for that position.
You could go work anywhere.
It's not like Catholic schools are the only option.
You could go to public school.
You could go to a private school that's not Catholic.
But the Catholic Church does not hide.
The Catholic Church makes no qualms about its position on these topics.
Everybody knows.
So you know that going in.
And so that's where I stand on that.
So I fully support their decision to fire them because it's not, you know, you clearly are, you've taken a job, your job is to instill Catholic values and Catholic teachings.
You clearly aren't interested in doing that job.
You don't want to do that job because you don't agree with Catholic teaching.
Which, fine, you're free to not agree, but just why go work at a Catholic school of all places?
Of all the options, why that?
It doesn't make any sense to me.
So it's hard for me to have sympathy for these people, even though I do.
If you lose your job, I have some sympathy.
But still, of all your options, why did you go there?
You don't agree.
You obviously... Now, think about it.
The Catholic Church has always taught that marriage is between a man and a woman.
That's been the teaching for 2,000 years.
If you disagree, Then that means that you do not respect or acknowledge the authority of the Catholic Church.
You think the Catholic Church is wrong about a crucial moral issue.
And if it is, and it has been wrong for 2,000 years, then you shouldn't listen to the Catholic Church at all about anything.
You shouldn't be Catholic.
Why do you even want to work at a Catholic school in that case?
That's the point here.
If the Catholic Church is wrong about the gay issue, which I don't think they are, but if they are, then that means the Catholic Church has been wrong about a crucial moral issue, theological issue, for 2,000 years, which means that the entire credibility of the Catholic Church is destroyed And if it has no credibility, if it's wrong, then again, which you must think is the case if you disagree with it on this issue, then why would you want anything to do with it?
Why would you want to teach at the school?
I can only assume it's because you have these negative thoughts about the Catholic Church and Catholic teaching, and so you want to kind of undermine it from the inside.
And if that's your mission, which I would have to assume it is, if you would still go for the job, then that's all the more reason for the school to fire you.
Because your mission is the exact opposite of the stated mission of the school.
So, that's where I stand on that.
And I think we'll leave it there for today.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
Godspeed.
Today, on the Ben Shapiro Show, the Democrats get increasingly radical.
Now it's free college for everyone, ever.
▲
Export Selection