All Episodes
March 26, 2020 - The Matt Walsh Show
43:33
Ep. 453 - Pro-Abortion Governors Pretend To Believe Life Is Precious

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, government officials are justifying their draconian lockdowns by saying “life is precious” and it’s all worth it “just to save one life.” But many of these officials are Democrats and therefore pro-abortion. There seems to be a disconnect here. Also, Five Headlines, including the official jobless numbers from last week. They are historically bad, and that’s an understatement. Plus our Daily Cancellation and an email from someone who wants to tell me why I’m wrong about the arguments I presented on my show yesterday. Check out The Cold War: What We Saw, a new podcast written and presented by Bill Whittle at https://www.dailywire.com/coldwar. In Part 1 we peel back the layers of mystery cloaking the Terror state run by the Kremlin, and watch as America takes its first small steps onto the stage of world leadership. If you like The Matt Walsh Show, become a member TODAY with promo code: WALSH and enjoy the exclusive benefits for 10% off at https://www.dailywire.com/Walsh Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Today on the Matt Wall Show, government officials are justifying their draconian lockdown measures by saying life is precious and it's all worth it if it saves one life, that sort of thing.
But many of these officials are Democrats and therefore pro-abortion, extremely pro-abortion in some cases.
And so there seems to be A little bit of a disconnect here, and we're going to talk about that.
Also, five headlines, including the official jobless numbers for last week, are out, and they are historically bad, which actually is somewhat of an understatement.
So we'll discuss that, plus our daily cancellation and an email from somebody who wants to tell me why I'm wrong about the argument that I laid out on the show yesterday.
So we'll talk about all of that coming up.
And I hope that quarantine is treating you well so far.
This is a very weird time.
Very strange time.
I don't know if we... It's easy to lose sight of just how strange it is that we're all locked down.
I think last I saw, it's half of the world's population, I think.
Three billion people are on some kind of lockdown.
And... I don't know.
You get used to it.
But if I had told you six months ago that this is what we'd be doing in March, you wouldn't have believed it.
I think our capacity as human beings for getting used to things can be good, but there's also a downside.
I was saying yesterday on the All Access Live show that I did that, you know, I think if aliens were to land on Earth from another galaxy, And start assimilating into the population.
We would all be used to it and bored with it within about four or five days.
There would be maybe one or two days of, oh my god, aliens are here.
And then really quickly, it's, we're bored.
It's just, well, it's just how it is.
That's what life is.
I wonder if the same thing is happening with these quarantine measures.
And it shouldn't happen.
I don't think we want to get used to it.
Now, speaking of the quarantines, Governor Andrew Cuomo of New York has said and repeatedly returned to the theme, as I've talked about here, that all of the lockdowns and the quarantines in his state will be worth it if it saves just one life.
That's what he said.
And other Democratic governors and mayors have made similar statements.
The mayor of Los Angeles said, life is precious, that's why we're doing this.
A couple nights ago, Joe Biden tweeted in an apparent response to Trump, who obviously has expressed his desire to open things up again sooner rather than later, said that, quote, no one is expendable and no life is worth losing to add one more point to the Dow.
Now, the first problem With these comments is that they are manifestly absurd.
Obviously, it would not be worth it to collapse the economy to save one life.
Consigning millions to destitution to save one person would not be a fair trade.
And while it is true that nobody is expendable as an individual, it's not true that no life is worth losing in order to salvage the economy.
Biden, of course, is trying to turn the economic concerns of millions of Americans into a quibble over points on the stock market index, but he knows better.
He well knows, just like everybody else who's pulling this trick of saying, if you're concerned about the economy, you're putting money over people, all you care about is your portfolio and so on.
They all know better.
What's at stake here is not merely the stock market, but the livelihoods of countless Americans.
Now, we'll talk about this in the news portion of the show, the headline segment, but there were over three million jobless claims last week, and that's only the beginning of it.
That only scratches the surface of how bad things are.
Three million.
That's not about points on the Dow, okay?
Those are people.
Those are people's livelihoods.
So when we talk about the jobless problem, we're talking about a problem for people, a serious problem, not a small problem.
This isn't something superficial.
So what he's really arguing, Biden that is, is that it cannot be worth it for any individual life to be lost in order to preserve the livelihoods of many millions.
And that's simply ridiculous.
As we've talked about, and I talked about on the show yesterday, We all believe that 35,000 dead on our roadways every year is a price worth paying so that we can drive around and get from point A to point B quicker.
That is a bargain, that's a calculation, a deal that we've all made.
We've all signed on to it.
If you hadn't signed on to it, then you'd be out there advocating for the abolition of all automobiles.
But you're not advocating that.
And so what you're saying is, okay, 35,000 people, 30 to 35,000 people are going to die in America on the roadways every year that we allow people to drive.
But I don't like it, I'm sad about the people that die, but I'm okay with that deal so that I can get to the grocery store faster.
That's the calculation you're making.
So the idea that even one dead person is not worth it to preserve the entire economy, when we think that 35,000 dead people a year are worth it just to preserve our ability to drive, is nonsensical.
We'll talk about more of this in just a moment, but you know, I want to tell you a quick word about ExpressVPN.
It's easy, To go kind of stir crazy when you're stuck inside and you spend a lot more time online.
And I think that's all the more reason why a VPN might be a good idea.
I think we all, I don't know if we, does your smartphone give you an update on how much screen time?
I don't remember putting that setting onto my phone, but it's there.
And so once a week, it'll tell me how much screen time I've had over the past week.
And I feel like my phone is now shaming me at this point because it's a whole lot of screen time when you're stuck inside, let's be honest.
Did you know that your internet service provider like Comcast or Verizon knows every single website you visit?
And what's worse is they can sell this information to ad companies and tech giants who will use your data to target you.
ExpressVPN puts a stop to this.
It creates a secure encrypted tunnel between your device and the internet so that your online activity cannot be seen by anyone.
ExpressVPN works on everything, phones, laptops, even routers.
So, everyone who shares your Wi-Fi can still be protected, even if they don't have ExpressVPN.
The best part is, using ExpressVPN is as easy as closing the bathroom door to give yourself a little privacy.
It's that easy.
So, here's the thing.
If you're like me, and you believe that your online activity is your business, not anybody else's, then secure yourself by visiting expressvpn.com slash walsh today.
Use my exclusive link.
That's e-x-p-r-e-s-s-v-p-n dot com slash walsh.
And you can get an extra three months free if you do that right now.
That's expressvpn.com slash Walsh.
Now, um, so all these statements from Cuomo, Biden, et cetera, et cetera, about no worth, life is worth losing and so on.
We could possibly take it in a more generous light.
We could say, perhaps they aren't speaking literally, and what they really mean is simply that life is enormously precious and great sacrifice is sometimes necessary in order to preserve it.
Maybe that's what they're saying.
Well, I would suggest in that case, first of all, that now is not the time for vague hyperbole and platitudes from our leaders.
And if they mean life is enormously precious and great sacrifice is sometimes necessary to preserve it, then they should just say that.
They should say that.
But more to the point, we already know that these people do not actually view human life that way.
They don't think that human life is, in and of itself, precious.
We know they don't think that.
Governor Cuomo just last year signed a bill into law that legalizes abortion through every stage of pregnancy, way into viability, all the way up to birth.
With the supposed stipulation that only if the mother's health is in jeopardy.
Well, the problem there is that health can be anything.
Emotional health, financial health, psychological health.
So, what that means is you can get an abortion for any reason, effectively, in New York up until birth.
Governor Cuomo signed that into law.
Thousands and thousands of babies are killed in New York every year.
Yet Cuomo believes in this slaughter, has helped to facilitate it.
The murder of, again, thousands of fully developed and viable infants in the womb.
This is Biden's view also.
He's in favor of this.
It's a somewhat recently adopted view.
But that's his view.
So it's clear, they don't think that life is precious.
They don't believe that heaven and earth should be moved to save one life, or even a million lives.
A million lives are taken every year, on average, by abortion clinics.
They don't want to do anything to stop that.
In fact, they want to increase it.
They want to encourage it.
They do, in fact, believe that some life is expendable.
That's what they believe.
I don't believe that.
I would never describe life as expendable, even if I do believe that there are risks that have to be taken in order for a society to function.
And you have to accept the fact that people are going to die.
That's not just about society, that's part of being mortals.
So I believe that, yes.
But I would never say that life is expendable.
Or worthless.
That's what Democrats believe.
That's not my, that's not a straw man, that's not my characterization of it.
The baby's in the womb.
That is human life.
There's no doubt about that.
Especially as you get into the later stages, during viability.
Now, I would say it's human life the whole way through.
But whatever obfuscation you try to use for the very early stages, that's not available to you when you get later on and you have a viable, physically developed infant.
Clearly, even someone who tries to create gray areas in the womb, even they can't do that for the later stages.
Yet, Governor Cuomo says, yeah, you can kill a child at that point.
That life has no worth.
Has no moral value.
It is expendable.
In fact, it has negative value.
Not just no value.
Negative value.
Because according to their ideology, the destruction of innocent life can sometimes be a positive good and cause for celebration.
Now, I don't suggest that Cuomo, Biden, or any of the rest of them are insincere in their concern for the mostly elderly people who are being killed by the coronavirus.
I'm not saying that.
I'm sure they do find the death toll quite troubling.
I'm sure they do want to prevent people from dying, just as any rational person would, but they are plainly insincere in their concern for human life generally.
That part is insincere.
So we cannot take their destroy-the-economy-to-save-one-life arguments literally because the literal interpretation is insane, and we can't even take the arguments broadly and non-literally because the broad and non-literal interpretation conflicts with their platforms and their policies.
So we are left then with no way to take these statements, except as lies.
Plain and simple.
And that's what it is.
And it becomes quite a problem because When you've got leaders in government taking these historic, dramatic steps, locking down the entire economy, taking people's jobs from them, their livelihood, and then you can't trust or believe the reasons they give, well, that becomes a recipe for disaster.
On many different fronts.
And that's what we're facing here.
Now, let's go on to your five headlines.
The U.S.
Department of Labor report, I just mentioned this, but I think we need to get a little bit deeper into it.
U.S.
Department of Labor reports that more than 3.2 million Americans filed for unemployment last week.
Across the country, that's 3.2 million, okay?
Now, let me put these numbers into perspective.
3.2 million is about 1% of the nation's population.
1% of the nation becoming unemployed in one week is very, very high.
And those who are in favor of locking down the whole economy indefinitely, they have to agree that 1% is high because that's what they've been telling us the death rate is for the coronavirus.
It may, in fact, be much lower than that, but they say 1%, and they tell us it's very high.
I agree that in that context, 1% is high.
In this context, 1% is really high also.
The previous record for unemployment in one week, going all the way back to 1982, was 695,000.
Now, if you're wondering, the population was 230 million back then, so that was about half of a percent of the population.
Which means in raw numbers, our unemployment claims last week were five times higher.
Five times higher than the previous historic high.
And in terms of the percent of the population, it was still twice as high last week as has ever been.
Recorded before.
So, no matter how you look at it, this is utterly unprecedented.
Unlike anything our country has seen in history, the coronavirus is not and will not be the worst epidemic this country has ever experienced.
However bad it is or will be, it's not going to be that bad.
When I say not that bad, I don't mean it's not going to be that bad.
I mean it's not going to be as bad as the worst we've seen.
I think that much is clear by now.
But our response to it may well bring about the worst economic crash we've ever seen.
So does that make sense?
Is that proportionate?
Is that balanced in your mind?
Keep something else in mind.
The real number of jobless people right now, or people made jobless last week, is way, way, way higher than 3.2 million.
We don't know exactly how high it is, but we have to remember that many types of workers don't qualify for unemployment.
Plus there are going to be others who do qualify but don't know they do or haven't filed.
And then there are others who tried to file and couldn't because unemployment websites across the country are crashing and the numbers that people are calling are jammed up with everybody else calling at the same time.
So when you add all them into it, And then you also add in the number of people who've been made jobless since this past Sunday, because we're talking about last week's numbers.
In the last two weeks, how many actual people have been made jobless?
You want to talk about exponential.
It is exponentially higher than 3.2 million.
I just want to take a quick second to tell you about a new book that's out.
Listen, we're all quarantined, we're locked down, and if you don't want to spend all of your time watching TV or just staring at a blank wall, you know, I've resorted to that a few times, a great way to kill some time is to have a very good book.
And fortunately, I've got one I can tell you about.
Joel C. Rosenberg is a New York Times bestselling author who draws from extensive research and real-life meetings with world leaders for his fact-based fiction And his books have been read and enjoyed by lots of high-ranking people, including Vice President Pence and others.
Joel's new novel, The Jerusalem Assassin, centers around a fictional American president who's ready to roll out a Middle East peace plan.
As the time draws near to announce the peace plan in Jerusalem, high-ranking American officials begin to be assassinated one by one.
CIA operative Marcus Reikers has spent his career studying killers, and now he has to think like one to stop a deadly threat.
This is a fast-paced book, edge-of-your-seat thriller kind of book.
Although a lot of the subject matter is very, very related to the real world and serious, it does take you out of everything we're dealing with now a little bit and absorbs you in a fascinating story.
And then you avoid the unbearable boredom.
And we know that boredom can be deadly.
Boredom is the devil's playground.
Isn't that the saying?
Something like that?
The hardcover and e-book versions of The Jerusalem Assassin by Joel C. Rosenberg are available at your favorite retailer's website through the end of March.
My listeners can get a hardcover copy of The Jerusalem Assassin for an additional 10% off at Tyndale.com.
T-Y-N-D-A-L-E.com.
That's Tyndale.com by entering Walsh at checkout.
T-Y-N-D-A-L-E.com.
Promo code Walsh for an additional 10% off of the hardcover book.
Number two, the Senate passed its $2 trillion stimulus package.
Overall, as Trump's economic advisors tell us, the total cost of the government's relief efforts will be closer to $6 trillion.
Now, I've already complained about the stimulus package many times.
I think you know my complaints.
I'm not going to reiterate all of them.
I will just emphasize that this deal that gives $1,200 to some Americans With this deal, lots of people who need the money won't get it.
Lots of people who don't need it will get it.
And lots of people who need it and do get it aren't getting nearly enough.
And so I'm not sure what this accomplishes.
I have been in favor of what I proposed and advocated is you give money to everybody.
Give money to everybody and then people who get it and don't need it can donate it.
To someone else who does need it more than they do.
And that way communities can also take part.
It's sort of a collective effort between government and communities and people.
But what they're doing here is sort of the worst of all worlds.
Where they're choosing, basically arbitrarily, a certain segment of the population to give money to, and giving it to everybody in that segment and nobody else outside of it.
So that there's not, for my idea of communities helping each other and donating the money and kind of, there's not enough of it for that to work now.
Now we're just, we're going to exclude some people and include everybody over here.
Which, as I have explained, this means if the cutoff is $75,000 for an individual, and then
it starts dwindling from there, and at $99,000, it's cut off, or $98,000, I think, it's $99,000.
It cuts off completely.
Well, that means, you know, there are going to be plenty of people who make $60,000 or $70,000 a year, single individuals, and still have a job right now, working from home, still have an income, don't need the money, they haven't lost any money, and so we're going to send them a check anyway.
Meanwhile, you're gonna have a lot of people who made over $99,000 last year, but maybe are out of work right now, and maybe their business has already collapsed, and they're not getting anything.
I mean, they clearly need it more than the person who's making an income.
They get nothing, the person over here... It's... It doesn't... I'm sorry, it doesn't make any sense.
And then, yes, there will be some people, as the government's rolling the dice and hoping that, kind of just, really just throwing darts and hoping that a few of them hit the right people.
Well, yeah, a few of them will.
But those people, $1,200, if you're out of work now, you've been out of work for two weeks, you're probably going to be out of work for another who knows how long, what is $1,200 going to do for you?
Maybe it'll pay the rent, depending on where you live.
It's not going to buy food.
You're going to have to choose.
Buy food, pay the rent.
If somebody has living expenses, what's the point of spending trillions of dollars to send to some people enough money to pay half of their living expenses for one month?
I know you might say it's better than nothing, but is it?
I'm not even sure that it is.
And is it worth the trillions of dollars that we're spending it?
To me, it just seems like a waste.
You might as well burn the money.
Might as well just take trillions of dollars and just burn it, if this is how we're going to spend it.
Number three, one of the men behind the doomsday Imperial College projections, the one that scared governments across the world into putting three billion people under lockdown, has now suddenly adopted a more optimistic view of things.
Reading now from the New Scientist, says the UK should now be able to cope with the spread of COVID-19 virus, according to one of the epidemiologists advising the government.
Neil Ferguson at Imperial College London gave evidence today to the UK's Parliamentary Select Committee on Science and Technology as part of an inquiry into the nation's response to the coronavirus outbreak.
He said that expected increases in National Health Service capacity and ongoing restrictions to people's movements make him reasonably confident the health service can cope when the predicted peak of the epidemic arrives in two or three weeks.
UK deaths from the disease are now unlikely to exceed 20,000, he said, and could be much lower.
The need for intensive care beds will get very close to capacity in some areas, but won't be breached at a national level, said Ferguson.
The projections are based on computer simulations of the virus spreading, which take into account the properties of the virus, the reduced transmission between people, and the capacity of hospitals, particularly intensive care units.
He's one of the guys that effectively said this could be a world-destroying event.
And these projections from the Imperial College of London are largely why we're seeing everything we're seeing now in terms of the government's response.
And now he's saying, that might not be that bad.
You know, the thing is, and I know that When it comes to projecting what a virus is going to do, nobody can be 100% right.
You can't look into the future.
But this also isn't something we can wave off and say, well, he was wrong.
Yeah, okay.
He was a little off on that.
When you're making projections that cause governments to shut down and millions to be left destitute, this isn't just a my bad type of thing.
Meanwhile, Dr. Birx, during a press conference yesterday, had some words about media outlets that are hyping up Armageddon.
She's telling us to calm down a little, not that it isn't serious, but she is trying to put things in perspective, so watch this.
The numbers that have been put out there are actually very frightening to people.
But I can tell you, if you go back and look at Wuhan and Hubei and all of these provinces, when they talk about 60,000 people being infected, even if you said, oh, right, well, there's asymptomatics and all of that, so you get to 600,000 people out of 80 million.
That is nowhere close to the numbers that you see people putting out there.
I think it has frightened the American people.
I think on a model that you just run full out, you can get to those numbers if you have zero controls and you do nothing.
And we know that every American is doing something.
Some much-needed sanity, I think, there.
By the way, before we go on, if you haven't had a chance to watch some of our new content called All Access Live, you should head over to dailywire.com, check it out.
Jeremy Boring and Ben Shapiro kicked it off last week.
We've been doing live streams every single day.
I did one yesterday, and I think it's a lot of fun.
It's a more relaxed environment.
We're just sort of having a conversation, Q&A.
I wouldn't even call it a Q&A.
It's not that official.
We're structured.
It's really just a back-and-forth dialogue, which I have really enjoyed.
And the thing is, originally the plan was to roll this out, I don't know, weeks from now, but we've rolled it out early.
And this was also intended for our All Access members, but during the national emergency and quarantines, while people are isolated, we've opened it up to all of our members and also, as I said, accelerated the launch.
If you're around at 8 p.m.
Eastern tonight, 5 p.m.
Pacific, then head over and join us on All Access Live.
It's a lot of fun, and I hope you'll be there.
Where are we?
Number four.
Oh, important news here.
Pete Buttigieg, according to this photo, take a look, is now growing a beard.
Here's what I don't get.
And yeah, if he stops there, then we can't call that a beard.
But it looks, if he's on his way to a beard, then we can say he's growing a beard.
But here's what I don't get.
Why do these guys always wait until they lose to grow the beard?
Buttigieg did it.
I think O'Rourke did it, right?
Ted Cruz?
The most prominent example.
Ted Cruz... Every man can improve his appearance by growing a beard.
I think for Ted Cruz, Speaking of exponential, the improvement was exponential.
And yet he waited until he lost the presidential primary to Crowd.
I don't get it.
This idea that if you're running for president, you have to be baby-faced, clean-shaven, like some kind of freak.
I don't understand that.
We have not had, as I've been screaming about for years, we have not had a president with facial hair in over a century.
And look at what's happening to America right now.
You think this is a coincidence?
Think about this.
Think about the entire 20th century.
How horrific that was in many ways.
And now we've got lockdowns, a pandemic.
You think it's a coincidence?
I don't think so.
Imagine if we've had bearded presidents this whole time.
Imagine how much different things would be.
Bearded men obviously are better looking, smarter, better leaders, stronger, and yet we say for the most important job in the world, for some reason, this unofficial rule, if you're running, you can't have a beard.
Makes no sense to me.
Number five, the mayor of Chicago is now warning residents of the city that they must not spend too much time outside.
Even if they're, well, outside.
Out in the open.
You can't be outside for too long.
Reading from CBS Chicago.
Visibly frustrated with reports of gatherings throughout Chicago, Mayor Lori Lightfoot delivered a stern warning to those who continue to get together during the COVID-19 pandemic.
We will shut it down and you may be arrested.
Lightfoot said, stay at home.
Only go out for essentials.
You have to readjust your thinking.
Be smart.
Not only will our police be deployed to shut them down if you're not abiding by these orders, we will be forced to shut down the parks and lakefront.
The situation is deadly serious, and we need you to take it deadly seriously.
Lightfoot added that spending long periods of time outdoors anywhere is not allowed, and neither is going into closed spaces like playgrounds.
You cannot go on long bike rides.
Playgrounds are shut down.
You must abide by the order.
Outside is for a brief respite, not for 5Ks.
I can't emphasize that enough.
This is, look, I can't see this as anything other than an absurd power trip from this mayor.
Now you're telling people how long they can spend outside?
You can go outside for five and a half minutes, not one minute longer, you understand me?
Give me a break, like, how are you gonna?
If you're going for a walk outside, how are you going to catch the virus?
You take basic precautions.
You're going for a walk.
You're not licking the... bending down and licking the sidewalk.
You're just going for a walk.
Okay?
If you pass by someone, you give them a little bit of space.
How are you going to catch it?
I'm not saying it's impossible, but how likely is it that a person... Let's say you are running a 5K.
How are you catching the virus running a 5K?
Even if, as you're running, somebody coughed directly in your path, the chances of catching it are still pretty damn low.
But that's probably not going to happen.
I understand you don't want large gatherings in enclosed spaces.
That's where you have a lot of the spreading that goes on.
But outside?
Really?
You can't go for a walk outside?
You're going to shut down the lakefront?
How are you going to do that?
Build a giant wall?
Now we're finally going to build the wall?
What, are you going to have armed policemen stationed there?
Shoot on sight?
Come on.
It's possible to say, let's take this seriously, let's take some precautions, without going all the way to this.
Screaming at people that you're gonna have them arrested if they spend too much time jogging outside.
It's not a zombie apocalypse.
I mean, this is what I would expect if there was an actual zombie apocalypse.
Then I would expect, stay inside your house, board up the windows, do not go outside for any reason.
I would expect that in a zombie apocalypse.
But for this?
Tell me, if I'm in Chicago and I just wanna sit on my front porch, I'm not allowed to do that.
Tell me, how do I catch the virus sitting on my front porch?
Tell me how I do.
If somebody's walking by on the sidewalk and I'm on my porch and they cough, how do I catch it?
Is the virus gonna travel in the air, in the open, 25 meters to infect me?
Is there any research suggesting that that is even slightly likely?
Now for your daily cancellation.
We will once again be cancelling the celebrities.
The celebrities are up to their tricks again.
As we've discussed, the celebrity community is having a very hard time being locked down, not getting attention, not having the paparazzi chasing them around.
It's really difficult.
And they're resorting to these increasingly desperate measures to get attention because they need it.
The way that you need water or food, they need attention.
If they don't get it, it's a biological need, they will shrivel up like raisins and die without it.
So, now the celebrities are in a stunning act of bravery, taking pictures of themselves without makeup.
To get attention.
Now, the courage this requires is extraordinary.
Imagine being an attractive person with lots of plastic surgery already, and then having the gumption, having the fortitude, the vision to take a picture without 18 pounds of makeup.
Incredible.
Simply incredible.
Page Six reports, they may be used to getting glammed up for the red carpet, but just like the rest of the world, celebrities are currently staying home and practicing social distancing during the coronavirus pandemic.
With no buzzy premieres or press events on their calendars for the time being, these stars are skipping makeup in favor of letting their natural beauty shine through.
And they're sharing it all on social media.
Below, see a selection of stars who are going the bare-faced route.
Then here's a few of the pictures.
Julia Roberts, Jessica Alba, Kaley, Coco, Cuoco.
I don't know who that is.
Heidi Klum.
Now what's going on here?
What is Heidi Klum doing?
She appears to be holding a piece of... What is that?
Mulch?
Is that a piece of mulch she's holding?
It's a piece of mulch that looks like a heart.
And she has her eyes closed in peaceful ecstasy, and someone has taken a picture of her with the sun shining behind her head, almost making a halo effect.
Now, is that what it's like to go for a walk with a supermodel?
It might sound like it'd be a lot of fun, but really, is this what happens?
You're taking a stroll, and then she finds a piece of mulch that she likes, and next thing you know, you're taking 90,000 pictures from 100 different angles?
Oh my word, this mulch!
Get a picture of me with this mulch.
You see this mulch?
Anyway, but isn't she wearing makeup?
Looks like she's wearing makeup.
I'm no expert, but that appears to be makeup.
It looks like something on her lips.
Some kind of makeup on her lips.
I don't know.
Any case, still very courageous, very brave.
Simply stunning.
I am speechless.
Especially as someone who, you know, myself, I've gone mostly without makeup, but I still have to put on a dash of eyeliner, a bit of lipstick, some foundation.
Just a little bit to get me through.
I don't have the courage to do what they're doing.
Wow.
Wow.
But still, cancelled.
Okay, let's go to emails.
I'll read one email and then we'll have a why you're wrong email.
But first, and remember you can become a Daily Wire member and send emails to the mailbag.
This is from Father Greg, says, hey Matt, in today's show you talked about soulmates.
I thought it would be an interesting diversion.
If I understood you correctly, you rejected the idea of soulmates and think the concept is dangerous as it implies if you made the wrong choice and later meet your soulmate, you are entitled to leave your wife.
In contrast, you proposed a model of soulmates where your wife becomes your soulmate when you make the commitment.
Please correct me if I missed something.
Mike, what you did not.
My question is, is the distinction you laid out exhaustive?
Aquinas implies that this distinction is not.
He argues with reference to the priesthood that someone can discern wrongly, in which case someone could choose the priesthood when he was called to marriage or vice versa.
Aquinas, however, goes on to clarify that when that man is ordained or married, his calling from that point changes.
This is due to the call to universal fidelity.
Could the same logic not exist with soulmates, where a man has a soulmate and marries the wrong person, but the universal call to fidelity causes his new wife to become his soulmate?
I don't know whether the soulmates exist, I just think it was an interesting question.
Well, that's a difference between, of course, vocation.
So you're talking about vocation, right?
So, if someone is called to the religious life, and I do believe that many people are, Then that's a vocation.
And I do believe there are many people called to it who do not heed the call, and there are probably some people who are not called to it, and that's obvious too, who are not called to it and yet become religious.
And the same thing could happen with marriage, where people are called to marriage, yet their vocation is marriage, yet they don't get married, or they do get married and that wasn't their vocation.
And it can happen in careers.
Of course, unfortunately, with careers, it's a lot easier to switch courses midstream.
You can't really do that, or at least you shouldn't do it with marriage or priesthood.
So that's vocation.
I think that's different from this.
With the soulmate thing, the idea is, if we believe there are soulmates, what we're saying is that there is one person.
It's not that you're called to marriage.
It's that you're called to one particular person who's out there somewhere, and that's the person you're supposed to marry.
And so I would... I still would reject that premise.
I just don't think it's true.
And it wouldn't even... I don't even know exactly what it means.
What exactly does that mean?
That there's someone who God has designed for you, but he's hid that person out in the world somewhere?
So it's like, where's Waldo?
Right?
And you could choose the wrong person, and now you're stuck with that person instead?
So, to me, it doesn't make sense.
It doesn't seem like a particularly wise way to set things up.
So, I wouldn't expect that God, as all-wise and all-knowing, would.
And again, as you say, once you become married, then that person is your soulmate.
So, why do we need a pre-marriage soulmate?
So I would say, when you meet somebody, if you're single and you meet someone, and you say, this person is not my soulmate, well they're not.
They could become that if you get married, but right now they're not.
Let's see, Arthur says, hopefully you'll read this.
Arthur wants to tell me why I'm wrong about something.
He says, there's a distinction I think you might be missing between shutting things down for the virus as opposed to cars.
Cars are voluntary.
It's true that getting in a car can kill you, but that's a risk you acknowledge when you get in a car and start driving it.
It's an inherent risk that you know about and choose to accept.
There are alternatives to driving.
I'm not saying that it's good.
I'm saying that the government's responsibility isn't to regulate an accepted risk.
The virus, on the other hand, cannot be avoided reasonably because of how the transmission works from person to person.
That is when the government has a responsibility to step in and help people.
I'm not saying that the government has picked the best option when it comes to COVID-19 response, but I am saying that there's a difference between the two, and furthermore, hindsight is 20-20.
Okay.
Right, but I think, again, you're kind of missing the point, Arthur.
I don't think that this has anything to do with what I'm talking about.
And first of all, you say that the government doesn't have a responsibility to regulate an accepted risk.
They do regulate driving.
They regulate the hell out of driving in order to mitigate the risk.
Yet we still know that there is a risk, and even with all those mitigation efforts, there are going to be 30,000 to 35,000 people who die on the roadways.
And that number is only going to go up, probably, as the population increases.
So, we know that.
And what you're again getting into, the confusion I think you have, is you're talking about the specific differences between a virus and car accidents, and how one is more dangerous than the other, and one is more avoidable than the other.
Now, you say that there's nothing we can reasonably do to avoid getting a virus.
I disagree with that.
I think there are a lot of things we could do.
That's why we're talking about washing.
Look, if you wash your hands, you've already done quite a lot to avoid getting the virus.
If you don't touch your face, you've done quite a lot.
Now, as you can see, when I do this show, I'm very bad at that part of it, but I do wash my hands a lot, so hopefully it's okay.
I'm also not leaving my house, so at the same time I feel like maybe touching my face isn't a big deal.
Either way, there's plenty we can do to avoid getting a virus, but all of that is irrelevant.
How dangerous it is, how much it can be avoided, all of that, that's not the point.
My point is simply this, to say it again.
Every year that we allow people to drive their cars, 30 to 35,000 people will die.
And across the world, it would be a million people, or thereabouts.
And there will be tens of thousands more, if not hundreds of thousands more, I don't know, who are seriously injured, maimed, or crippled in car accidents.
We know that is the cost of having our cars.
And yet, nobody says, let's get rid of cars.
And so what we are, the calculation we have made, the bargain we have made, the deal we've made is, Those 35,000 dead are a price worth paying so that we can drive.
We don't want to put it that way.
We don't want to think of it that way.
We're not saying that it would be worth it to actively kill 35,000 people to appease the gods or something so that we can drive.
That's not the point.
We're not saying that we should go out and kill 35,000 people ourselves in order to drive.
What we're saying is, if people drive, 35,000 people or thereabouts will die.
We don't want them to, but they will.
And, although we're very sad about that, we will accept that side effect.
And then we bring that over to the COVID-19 discussion, and we say, okay, In order to preserve our economy.
We know what we're willing to accept in order to preserve our ability to drive.
What are we willing to accept in terms of a death toll in order to preserve our economy and our way of life and our livelihoods?
Our cars along with our homes and our retirement savings and the food in our fridge and everything else.
What are we willing to accept there in terms of risk?
In terms of potential death toll?
It's got to be way over $35,000.
So what is it?
I don't know.
I'm just saying that's the point.
That's the ethical question that we're dealing with.
All right, but thank you for that email.
And we will cut it off there.
Thanks everybody for watching.
Stay safe out there.
God bless.
Godspeed.
If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe, and if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review.
Tell your friends to subscribe as well.
We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts, we're there.
Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcasts, including The Ben Shapiro Show, Michael Knowles Show, and The Andrew Klavan Show.
Thanks for listening.
The Matt Wall Show is produced by Sean Hampton, Executive Producer Jeremy Boring, Supervising Producer Mathis Glover, Supervising Producer Robert Sterling, Technical Producer Austin Stevens, Editor Danny D'Amico, Audio Mixer Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
The U.S.
Senate passes a $2 trillion coronavirus relief package after days of intense debate.
We will examine the good, the bad, and the ugly.
Then, more good news on the scientific front of the pandemic, more fury from the mainstream media, and a major MeToo allegation against Joe Biden.
We will analyze the evidence and the accuser.
Export Selection