Sometimes I’ll run across an opinion piece that’s so spot on it must be shared.   So, today I’m including a link to “Me Too for Me, but Not for Thee” by Judd Garrett – https://juddgarrett.substack.com/?utm_source=chatgpt.com

Garrett begins his article by dialing back the clock to October 15, 2017, when Alyssa Milano tweeted, “If you’ve been sexually harassed or assaulted write ‘me too’ as a reply to this tweet.”  Garrett went on to describe how her tweet went viral and the country became laser focused on stopping sexual assault and holding the abusers accountable as liberal women across the nation championed the cause.

#MeToo asserted a simple moral rule: sexual predators must be exposed and removed, no exceptions!  That message gained traction because it treated women’s safety as non-negotiable.  So why is it that those same activists/advocates who actively engaged in the MeToo# movement now violently oppose the removal of criminal illegal aliens convicted of heinous crimes that are orders of magnitude more egregious than those that set them into a frenzy like the pitchfork wielding town folks in search of the Frankenstein monster just 9 short years ago?

#MeToo focused primary on sexual harassment while the targets of ICE agents in Minneapolis are violent sex offenders convicted of rape, pedophilia, and child molestation – so where’s the outcry from the Left?

I encourage you to go online and read Mr. Garrett’s piece because it discloses the abject hypocrisy of those who pick and choose political outcomes over the rule of law.   There’s an old saying, “when moral outrage shifts with context it’s no longer a standard—it is a strategy.”

Many of the same voices who once insisted on zero tolerance now oppose or obstruct the removal of men accused of rape and murder when enforcement conflicts with their preferred political narratives.  And when moral outrage becomes conditional—applied fiercely in one context and softened in another—it ceases to be a principle – it becomes a tool.

This inconsistency exposes a deeper problem: for too many activists, moral language is not a compass but a lever.  Victims who reinforce the narrative are amplified; victims who complicate it are ignored.  The issue is not compassion or due process—it is selective outrage and as phony as a three-dollar bill.  If sexual violence is truly the worst crime, then its condemnation cannot depend on the offender’s utility to a political coalition.  And a movement that demands absolute moral authority while practicing situational ethics reveals that power, not principle, was always the point