 So, self-proclaimed theocratic fascist Matt Walsh is one of these individuals on the right who constantly fear mongers about LGBTQ plus people. Their groomers, teachers are groomers, they're grooming children at family-friendly pride events. He also joined the Libs of TikTok campaign to demonize Boston's children's hospital and claimed that they were doing bottom surgeries on trans girls, which was not happening. And this led to them being harassed and receiving death threats. So this individual, he pretends as if he's concerned about the safety of children, but as people lately are pointing out, it doesn't seem as if he's that concerned in actuality about the safety of children, considering this 2015 article that he wrote, where he did a soft defense of Josh Duggar. So it's titled The Duggers, which is the stars of the TLC Show, 19 Kids and Counting for those of you who don't know, aren't hypocrites, progressives are. A Christian failing to live up to his faith does not make him a hypocrite. It makes him cowardly, perhaps. It makes him selfish. It makes him flawed. It makes him sinful. Now, I'm not going to attack the core argument here. That's essentially the crux of his argument, but he is wrong. And I do want to address that really quickly before we get into the elements of this article that are, I guess, perplexing, we'll call it that, right? But he's wrong. Josh Duggar is an individual who molested multiple little girls, including his sisters, one as young as five years old. Now, he did this when he was a teenager. So this is a serial child molester. And the reason why he's a hypocrite is because of the career that he had before he was forced to resign after it came out that he was indeed a child molester. So he was the executive director at the Family Research Council, which is an organization, by the way, that the Southern Poverty Law Center designates as a hate group and rightfully so. Now, what this organization does is it tries to defame homosexuals as pedophiles with members saying that the goal of the homosexual movement is to gain access to children and abolish the age of consent laws. And they also had a publication called Homosexual Behavior and Pedophilia. So the entire goal of this organization is to demonize queer people. And mostly they do this by smearing them as pedophiles, claiming that to be gay means that you are inherently a pedophile. And that's what he did. He worked at this organization. I mean, to defame LGBTQ plus people as pedophiles, while Josh Duggar himself is a pedophile, that is the definition of hypocrisy. But yet, Matt Walsh decided to defend him there. And Josh Duggar, he lobbied a number of politicians. I mean, he's taken pictures with Mike Huckabee, Rick Perry, Steve King, Scott Walker, Rick Santorum, Jeb Bush, Sarah Palin, Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, Rand Paul, Mike Pence. So Matt Walsh's core argument here is complete dog shit. But I don't want to focus on the argument because, again, that's not really why this article stood out to a lot of people as suspicious, rightfully so. So the reason why this article is. Disturbing is because he does a sort of soft defense of the Duggar's and even Josh Duggar, albeit to a lesser extent. So first and foremost, let me be fair and say that he does unequivocally condemn Josh Duggar's actions. But still, even condemning his actions, the way that he portrays Josh Duggar, a serial pedophile, is as sympathetic as if he's the victim because of the backlash to his pedophilia becoming public. He writes, Josh Duggar has already lost his job, been publicly shamed and had his name permanently sullied by these revelations. But critics are not satisfied. They want the show canceled. It was canceled, by the way, and anyone who supports the family to give up and join the mob of stone throwers and witch burners. They say that Josh is not the only villain here. His parents are also guilty for not going to the police immediately. Today, I'm told Josh Duggar's actions from 12 years ago ought to be enough to, as Montell Williams declared, forever brand him as a slime bag and a danger to kids. But I can recall recent cases like Mike Brown's where past crimes were completely irrelevant, even though the past crime happened like three minutes before he assaulted officer Darren Wilson. I'm having trouble following the logic. OK, so that's red flag number one. He's comparing a serial pedophile to an unarmed black teenager who was extra judicially murdered by a police officer. Is this really the argument that you want to make? Nobody is saying that if you commit a crime, you shouldn't be held accountable for said crime. But what we're saying is that crime shouldn't result in the death penalty. And furthermore, one cop shouldn't be the judge, the jury and the executioner. But he's trying to make it seem as if, oh, no, no, this victim of police violence. He's actually the one who's terrible. And, you know, if liberals aren't willing to admit that he was terrible, then I guess, you know, I don't have to admit that Josh Stugger was terrible or as terrible as people want to claim that he is. Except, again, I don't care what Mike Brown did. He was murdered by a police officer with many people saying he had his hands up. Witnesses, videos show this. I don't give a fuck what crime he committed. A cop doesn't get to take the life of a teenager. OK, you arrest him, you apprehend him and you take him to jail if he committed a crime. We're talking about something completely different. Like he's comparing apples to oranges, but he wants to make it seem as if sometimes, you know, the punishment doesn't necessarily match the crime. That's what he's priming you to believe. And it's so disgusting to bring up in, you know, a case that demonstrates how disgusting our racist criminal justice system is to do soft apologia for a pedophile is gross. But believe it or not, it gets worse. He writes, I know I'm opening myself up to serious criticism here, but let me be honest with you. If my own son, God forbid, came to me and admitted to doing what Josh Stugger did. I don't know that I'd immediately run to the cops. Would you? Is it really that simple? The decision to have your child arrested as a sex offender would be an automatic thing for you. Really? I guess I'm just a horrible person, then, at least he admits it. I don't know all the details. Nobody outside of the family does or ever will. But it appears that Josh's parents attempted to address the situation within their family before going to church and then eventually to a law enforcement officer. Again, there might be parts of this story that would change my analysis. But right now, based on what we know, it seems that they handled this the right way. Or at least I can't say for sure that I would have known any better way to go about it as a parent. You have to think whether your 14 year old son deserves to have his life ruined over his mistakes. Maybe you decide that he does. I can't say I'd agree. Is that so? OK, well, let's put it a different way, Matt Walsh. In the event your son came to you and said that he had molested your other children, you wouldn't immediately be concerned for his victims. Wouldn't be concerned that he'd do that again. Because that's what should be at the forefront of that parent's mind. Of course, you're not going to, you know, just stop caring for your son. But immediately you learned that your daughters were victimized. And your first thought is, oh, my God, my poor son, what am I going to do to him? I mean, do you understand why this is so egregious and why people took issue with what he said here? He is normalizing violence against women and little girls. By not even thinking about what these girls went through, how they are traumatized for the rest of their lives to not immediately be concerned about the danger that he poses to your other children. I mean, it's just it's sick. So no, I don't think that the duggers handle this appropriately. So what they did when he confessed to them that he did this was they sent him to a family member and he did hard labor for several months. And then when he got back, they talked to the sheriff sheriff or something like that. I mean, you you just you're admitting like this is why this is so insane to me. Matt Walsh is admitting I really don't give a fuck about the little girls in the situation. I care about the predator. Really? That's the implication. If you are really struggling about what to do to protect your pedophile child, then you don't care about the victims. I mean, at any point did you think, man, I can't imagine what these girls went through. Having their own brother do this egregious act to them, something that will traumatize them and affect them for the rest of their lives. Psychological pain that they will never be able to discharge. This will go with them, follow them everywhere. But yet he's worried, are we being a little bit too mean to the pedophile? But Matt Walsh wants you to believe that he actually cares about the safety and well-being of children after writing this soft defense for a fucking pedophile who molested multiple little girls. These people are not serious. They don't care about children. So whenever they tell you that LGBTQ plus people are a danger to children, they don't care. They're just trying to demonize queer people and they're using these gay pedophile tropes and stereotypes as some way to get you to think that just that vilification of queer people is justified. But no, don't listen to these folks. Look at what they say about actual child predators. And it's genuinely disturbing. So look, this is something that he wrote in 2015. I don't know if he stands by this, but he's admitting here. Yeah, I just I don't know what I do in this situation. Maybe I wouldn't turn in my son. I just let him live in this home with my other daughter. So he can continue to molest them. This is genuinely disturbing. Sick shit. So he has the audacity to feign concern over the safety of well-being and well-being of children after pending this disgusting article. This is soft apologia for pedophiles. And he should be ashamed of himself for writing this. I don't know if he still believes this, like I said, but either way. I wouldn't stand by this if I were you, Matt Walsh, especially after taking up the mantle of protecting children. We'll just leave that there.