Ep. 457 - How We Are Setting A Precedent For Future Democratic Administrations To Exploit
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, with the government seizing unprecedented power in the name of a “national emergency” and a threat to “public health,” we must consider what might happen when the next Democratic president gets into office and decides that, for example, climate change is a national health emergency. Also, Five Headlines, including medical experts saying “Oops, turns out masks are actually pretty effective,” after weeks of saying the opposite. And today we cancel a school principal who warned parents that they should not attempt to teach their own kids during quarantine. Plus, a whole bunch of people write to tell me why I’m wrong to object to the government arresting pastors who hold worship services.
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
Today on the Matt Wall Show, with the government now seizing unprecedented power in the name of a national emergency and a threat to public health, we have to consider what might happen when the next Democratic president gets into office and decides that, for example, climate change is a national health emergency.
What happens then?
We'll talk about that.
Also, five headlines, including medical experts, Saying now, you know, oops, turns out, you know how we told you guys not to wear masks because masks aren't effective and they won't do anything?
Turns out they are effective.
So they've kind of changed on that, but there's reason to believe, in fact it seems pretty clear, that some of these organizations like WHO and CDC, they were just flat out lying before and saying that masks aren't effective to slow the spread of the disease, of the virus, even though they knew that they are effective.
So we'll talk about that.
And today in your daily cancellation, we're going to cancel a school principal who warned parents that they should not attempt, whatever they do, do not attempt to teach your own children during the shutdown.
You are not a teacher.
You are a parent.
We'll talk about what's wrong with that attitude.
Plus, a whole bunch of people write To tell me why I'm wrong in my objections that I raised yesterday to the government arresting pastors who hold worship services.
I'm wrong to object to that.
So says these emailers, so we'll go through those today as well.
But starting off here.
Yesterday, former President Barack Obama sent out a tweet scolding President Trump and tying the coronavirus pandemic to climate change.
This is what Obama wrote.
He said, We've seen all too terribly the consequences of those who denied warnings of a pandemic.
We can't afford any more consequences of climate denial.
All of us, especially young people, have to demand better of our government at every level and vote this fall.
Along with this tweet was a link to an LA Times article about the Trump administration curtailing some of the vehicle emissions standards that Obama had put in place.
So Obama's point is that, in his opinion, a failure to take governmental action against climate change will have the same sort of effect as Trump's failure, in his opinion, to take governmental action against the coronavirus.
Now, what Obama doesn't mention and doesn't want us to realize is that, you know, among the people who denied the initial threat of a pandemic, was the media, the left wing media, CNN among them.
They were also early on saying that this isn't gonna be a pandemic.
I said it too, most people were saying.
But of course, Obama wants to tie it only to Trump.
Now, Obama is hammering on a familiar theme.
Many media outlets have attempted to link climate change and this.
There was a recent article in Time, the article titled, Five Lessons from Coronavirus That Will Help Us Tackle Climate Change.
And it goes through the five lessons.
One of the lessons is that global challenges require systemic changes, changes that can only be activated by government or companies.
And the article goes on from there and says, but they also require individual behavioral changes.
We need both.
We've seen over the past few weeks that governments can take radical action and we can change our behavior quickly.
Al Jazeera has also connected the two issues much more directly.
They published an article saying the coronavirus outbreak is part of the climate change crisis.
And we're told in the article that, quote, these sweeping and unprecedented measures taken by the government and international institutions to curb the virus should cause us to, quote, wonder about another global emergency that needs urgent action, climate change.
And then it continues, in fact, one may argue that the pandemic is part of climate change, and therefore our response to it should not be limited to containing the spread of the virus.
What we thought was normal before the pandemic was already a crisis, and so returning to it cannot be an option.
Now, I could marshal other examples here, but hopefully the point is pretty clear.
The left is arguing that the governmental response to the coronavirus should serve as a basis for the government's response to climate change.
Now, phrases like systemic changes and sweeping and unprecedented measures and behavioral changes, these are being used in a positive sense to suggest a path forward in our mortal struggle against the weather.
Now, those of us who historically have rightfully not been so keen on the government doing things that are sweeping and systemic should take note of this.
We should be quite wary, in fact.
I almost said we should be merry.
No, we should not be merry, we should be wary.
It seems at this point pretty likely, if not in fact inevitable, That the next Democratic president will use the precedents being set right now to justify dramatic infringements on our liberties for the sake of fighting the climate change boogeyman or any number of other real or imagined threats.
And we'll get more into that in just a second.
But first, I want to give you a word from Rad Powerbikes.
Everybody's looking for something to do right now.
First of all, to relieve a little bit of stress is good, and we're just looking for things to do.
It doesn't just entail sitting on your couch and watching screens, because I think we're all doing way too much of that.
I know that I am.
And that's where Rad Power Bikes comes in.
It's just something fun to do, and it's a constructive, healthy outdoor activity.
We still are allowed to go outdoors, you know, in most places anyway.
Rad Power Bikes, it's kind of a cross between a traditional bike and a moped, but it doesn't require a special driver's license like a moped would.
That's a good thing.
You can go up to 20 miles per hour without pedaling, so you can get out and about without getting sweaty, but you're still out there.
They're great for commuting.
Also, if you want to get out on the trail, We have a lot of trails around my house, so that's great for that.
Hauling groceries or even transporting your kids on the back.
Unlike other e-bikes, they're actually affordable.
Plus, to show appreciation for those that serve us, Rad Power Bikes is offering $100 off all e-bike purchases for active slash ex-military, first responders, teachers, and students.
And that's great, especially now when you think about what all those people are doing.
Rad Power Bikes offers flexible financing for as low as 0% APR.
And right now, as a limited time offer, get a free accessory with purchase of a bike.
That's right, you get a free gift.
...of up to $100 in value and free shipping to the lower 48 states.
To get this special offer, just text the word BIKE to 64000.
That's BIKE to 64000.
Text BIKE to 64000.
B-I-K-E to 64000.
Okay, um... So... We have to think about this.
The government projected that millions would die from the coronavirus epidemic and use
that as a justification for effectively suspending the Bill of Rights, locking millions of Americans
in their homes, forcibly closing millions of businesses, putting entire sectors of the
workforce out of work, arresting pastors, quarantining whole cities, even banning people
from walking around unless they have an approved reason.
Many Americans have approved of these measures, despite the fact that they're destroying our
economy and bringing us closer and closer to a crash and eventual depression that will
be unlike anything we've ever seen before.
So it doesn't take a fortune teller to detect where this might go next.
If the government's projections and models are reason enough to take this sort of action, then, and this is something I think you have to consider even if you're on board with everything that's happening right now, You still have to consider this.
Projections and models are the reason why all of this is happening.
And we're going to potentially crash the economy.
Not potentially, we are.
Because of projections and models.
And what happens, though, when the government, under a democratic president, projects the end of all life on Earth unless extraordinary things are done to circumvent it?
On what basis can those of us who endorse the current shutdown of American society to save millions of lives object when a similarly drastic program is put in place to save billions of lives?
I mean, if we're doing this to save millions, we certainly would do it to save billions, wouldn't we?
If the government can issue declarations that shutter, in many cases permanently, tens of millions of small businesses, why can't it issue declarations cancelling industries that it will say contribute to climate change and are helping to bring about Armageddon?
Those of us who support these shutdowns, at that point, I think we're going to be in quite a bind.
Because we're not going to be able to argue that the government in principle should not or does not have the power to toss free enterprise into the woodchipper along with the Bill of Rights, seize dictatorial control of our civilization and all that.
We won't be able to say in principle they can't do that or they don't have the power to do that.
That can't be our argument.
Because we will have already ceded that power and agreed and endorsed The government in doing those things.
So instead, what will our argument be?
I mean, I'm not saying that if you go along with this, that means you would have to agree to shutting down society to address climate change.
But what I'm saying is that your argument that you can use will be very limited and not nearly as powerful as it could be.
Because all we'll be able to do at that point is debate whether it is actually true that climate change poses that kind of threat.
That's going to be the debate.
It's going to be already assumed at that point that if it does pose that sort of threat, then the government can do all of these things and more.
So then it's going to come down to, does it pose that kind of threat?
It's going to be a battle of projections.
And you're going to have to come with your own projections and say, no, my projections say this isn't going to happen.
Yeah, but the problem is that the government will have the consensus of the scientific community on its side.
As we are told over and over again, 97%, whatever it is, 98%.
Now, you can point out that that number is misleading, and it is, but so what?
The government doesn't care about that.
They're gonna say, we have the consensus of the scientific community, we have 97%, that settles that, for all intents and purposes.
We're shutting things down.
We are saving the whole world from Armageddon.
If you try to stand in the way, then you hate humanity.
You're going to be responsible for the deaths of so many billions, so on and so on and so on.
There are other possibilities just as plausible or nearly as plausible.
Imagine a future democratic regime that declares gun violence a national emergency and a public health crisis.
And summarily orders the confiscation of all, quote, assault weapons or handguns.
Now, those of us who obediently support the effective suspension of the First Amendment, even up to the arrest of pastors who hold worship services, will have little ground to stand on when the Second Amendment is suspended.
I mean, if the one is negotiable and mutable, why not the other?
Right?
Especially if the government is saying, look, we're not going to confiscate all guns, just certain ones.
You don't need those.
It's the same way.
All these people yesterday were telling me, I was honestly, I shouldn't be shocked by it, but I was, when we were talking about pastors being arrested.
And I'll address this more in the email section, because as I said, lots of people disagree with me.
Lots of self-professed conservative Christians are apparently totally on board with arresting pastors.
One thing I heard over and over again is, you don't need to gather to meet.
You don't need to meet.
We have the internet.
Just meet on Zoom or Skype or whatever, or watch a YouTube, a live stream.
Don't you see how that's the exact same argument people make with guns?
Where they say, you don't need that.
You don't need an, quote, assault weapon.
You don't need it.
In a sense, they're right.
On a day-to-day basis, you don't need it, but that's not the point, is it?
It's not a point of you need it, it's a point that you have a right to it.
That's it.
And what you hear from gun rights advocates all the time is, look, I feel horrible about gun violence, I feel horrible when there's mass shootings, but if there was a mass shooting every day in this country using these weapons, I still wouldn't agree to having them confiscated.
Why?
Because I have a right to it.
That's the argument, right?
But, If the First Amendment is negotiable, mutable, then why not the second?
All we're going to be able to do at that point is argue that gun violence is not actually a health crisis and an emergency.
Because we will have already agreed, right, that if it is a health crisis and a legitimate emergency, then yeah, forget about the Bill of Rights.
Do what you want, government.
We right now, many of us, are already agreeing to that proposition as we speak right now today.
So then all we're going to be left with, we're arguing on their terms and we're saying, well, yeah, but if it was that, then maybe you could take that.
But it's not that.
But once again, the consensus of very smart and powerful people will overrule us.
They're going to marshal this consensus.
They have a whole consensus of people saying, no, it is a health crisis.
It is an emergency.
In fact, if you do confiscate guns, it will result in, you know, whatever percentage reduction of gun violence.
We're going to save X number of lives.
And so let's do it.
Right?
I mean, if you object to it, if you object to it, then which of your family members are you willing to have shot in the head in an incident of gun violence, if you object to it?
Which one?
Tell me.
Same exact argument people are using now.
We'll have nowhere else to go.
No other argument to turn to.
The most powerful argument that the government in principle should not have the power to take these sorts of actions, even if there really is a crisis, will no longer be available to us.
We will have forfeited it.
We are forfeiting it.
Right now, as we speak.
What if a future New York governor, Ocasio-Cortez, enjoying the support of a Democrat-run federal government, decides that the refusal of certain churches in her state to perform gay weddings is its own emergency because of the mental and emotional damage it does to people who are refused?
Can she close down those places of worship until they pledge to end their bigoted practices?
Why not?
If it really is an emergency, And besides, these churches, I mean, just like you don't need to meet, you don't need to.
You also don't need to reject gay weddings.
You don't need to.
It's not a need that you have.
You're not going to die if there's a gay wedding in your church, right?
So just do it.
And if you don't do it, we'll shut you down.
You don't need it.
If these possibilities seem implausible, To anyone, then I would suggest that the person who says they're implausible hasn't been paying very close attention to the rhetoric and language that these people on the left use when making their case.
Pay attention to the kinds of things they say.
They say things like health crisis, emergency, epidemic.
These are the words they use.
And they believe it.
And millions of Americans believe it.
And see it that way.
They've been setting the stage for this kind of power grab for many years now.
But I think the coronavirus response, and so you could rightly point out and smartly point out that, well, they already would want to do this even without the coronavirus, which is exactly correct.
But I think the coronavirus response and its passive acceptance by many Americans Has made what was once likely almost inevitable.
And it certainly at least would seem to have sped up the timeline of when we're going to see these things happen.
All right, remember, we only have 10 years left, right?
10 years until the catastrophic consequences, billions of people dead.
If you really believe that, it actually, by applying the logic that we're seeing used today, it would actually make a lot of sense.
Shut everything down, shut civilization down to stop it.
All right, we're going to move on to headlines.
But first, you know, what's the secret to building a good business, building a real business?
And when I say secret, we're not talking about get-rich-quick schemes, okay?
Not pyramid schemes or anything like that.
Those things are very appealing.
They make for nice little YouTube videos where you can kind of watch them and fantasize about having a Lamborghini and all that kind of stuff.
But what about building a real business?
What's it all about?
Success no matter the cost?
Is it about, you know, you have to prioritize business over family?
Have a bad marriage?
Do you have to have no ethics whatsoever?
Do you have to neglect your kids?
No, it doesn't have to be that way.
You can grow a business without sacrificing your family, without sacrificing your character.
I want to tell you about the Benham brothers.
The Benham brothers have over a dozen businesses, including a real estate empire that spans over 35 states, and they didn't sell their souls for it.
That's a good thing.
And if that name rings a bell, it's because you probably are aware of this.
The Benham brothers were slated for a reality TV show on HGTV and were cancelled because of their commitment to conservative values.
They sacrificed a lot of money.
You think about how much money there is in it for guys like the Benham brothers to be on HGTV.
Well, they sacrificed that because the other option was to sacrifice their values.
So-called business coaches tell you that your life has to take a back seat to your hustle.
But David and Jason Benham, are proof that that's simply a lie.
Just this week, the Benham Brothers launched their new course,
Expert Ownership.
It's the model they've used to build each one of their businesses.
Whether you're sick of the 9-to-5, or you have a 10-year-old business, whatever it is,
Expert Ownership can help you achieve your goals right now.
So to celebrate the launch of their new course, they're offering 15% off to new members.
You can check out a preview of their new course and take advantage of that discount over at
Head on over there to check out the new course now.
You're not going to regret it.
Okay, let's go to headlines.
The White House is now projecting between 100,000 and 240,000 dead from the coronavirus, even with the measures that we put in place.
Birx and Fauci tell us that this is better than the supposed 2 million or so who would have died with no mitigation efforts.
The models and projections are continuously adjusted, which on one hand is understandable, right?
Because nobody really knows the future.
But on the other hand, we are bankrupting the country and driving millions into financial ruin on the basis of projections.
So the fact that the projections keep changing is cause for concern, right?
But speaking of projections, as unreliable as they may be, here's my question.
Has anybody run a model or come up with a projection to tell us what the body count might be if we don't shut down the whole economy, but we also don't do nothing?
Because it seems like every model shows us, okay, this is what would happen if we shut everything down, and this is what happens if we do nothing.
And that's the 200,000 dead versus 2 million dead.
What they're telling us is that with the mitigation efforts, 100 to 200,000 dead, with nothing, 2 million.
Okay, but nobody is suggesting that we do nothing.
I honestly have not heard that proposed from anyone.
From any, at least from any, certainly from any prominent source.
I can't guarantee that there hasn't been somebody out on Twitter somewhere saying that, but I have not seen any prominent person, anyone of note, Uh, suggest that we do nothing in response to the coronavirus epidemic.
So, what these projections, they're giving us the total shutdown versus, on the other hand, a strategy that nobody has proposed.
So, what if we lock everything down but we also do things?
Quarantining the elderly, the sick, the symptomatic, encouraging mask use, even mandating it in certain situations, along with other hygiene measures, etc.
What if we did that?
What's the projection for that?
You know, you can't tell me that the projection would be the same as if we did nothing, because it's not nothing.
Obviously, it's going to have some effect.
It's going to do something.
So, what's the projection?
Shouldn't that be what we compare the lockdown projection to?
Wouldn't that give us a clearer picture of the costs and benefits, the risks and rewards of one strategy against the other?
How is it that in all of our discussion, in all of our projections, the idea of allowing the economy to continue while also taking serious mitigation steps hasn't even been considered or discussed?
And how do we not have projections for that?
It's mind-boggling.
Number two, according to Dr. Fauci, the CDC is now considering actually urging Americans to wear masks in public.
You may remember that these medical authorities, the CDC, who others, spent weeks, months really, telling us that we shouldn't wear masks and wearing masks won't accomplish anything.
Right?
We were told that.
Now, thinking back on it, of course, it never really made sense.
I mean, I'll admit, I bought it when they said it.
We had all these doctors say, oh, wearing masks won't do anything.
Now I thought to myself, what the, what?
It doesn't, what do you mean doesn't do it?
But okay, I mean, all right.
I mean, I don't know how these things work, so if you're telling me that it doesn't do anything, then sure.
It kind of proves how we should, oftentimes, we should just go with our common sense.
Or at least we should give our common sense a fairer hearing than we do, or at least I have done.
Because, of course, you think, well, wait a second.
If wearing a mask doesn't do anything, then why do doctors wear them?
Right?
And how could it be that it would offer no protection?
Obviously, if someone coughs and you're wearing a mask, you're at least better off with one than you would be without one.
You can't tell me that it does nothing whatsoever.
It must do something.
It is some kind of barrier.
And if you want to point out that, oh, actually the masks are about stopping you from spreading it, not so much stopping someone from spreading it to you, okay, well then a mask would seem to help there too.
Well, it turns out that, yeah, if you were someone who just used your common sense and said from the beginning, I don't believe that, you're looking pretty smart right now.
Because now we're being told by the CDC and these same medical authorities that, oh, no, actually, no, no, no, we might change that.
It turns out that masks actually might do something.
They are effective.
Not 100% effective, but effective in stopping the spread of the virus.
Even homemade masks.
I just looked at a study.
The New York Times mentions a study in a recent article.
This is a study done years ago.
About the, I think it was the flu virus, and they found that even a homemade mask, even something as crude as like a t-shirt over your face, obviously that's not going to be as effective as a medical mask, but it's a hell of a lot better than nothing.
Both when it comes to not contracting the virus and not spreading it.
Which again, when you think about your common sense, you think, well, they do tell us when we sneeze or cough to cough into our elbow, right?
So that is essentially a very crude homemade mask.
Now, if it's important for us to do that, and that accomplishes something, then it would make sense that a mask of some kind would accomplish at least that much mitigation.
So, it looks like the CDC and WHO are going to come out and say, officially, eventually, that, yeah, actually, about that mask thing, you should probably wear them.
But then we have to go back to the fact that these organizations, the organizations that told us not to wear masks, are the ones that are at the forefront, really, of shutting down the whole economy.
And it does make you wonder how much you should trust them.
Especially when it's, from how it looks right now, it's not as though these organizations were confused.
No, what we're being told now is that, well, they discourage mask use, the Surgeon General among them, I believe the Surgeon General said just flat out they don't work, not effective.
No, they knew that they do work, it's just that they were worried about Americans hoarding surgical masks and medical masks, and that's why they told us that.
So, they lied to us, they told a straight up lie, For the greater good.
For our benefit.
For our own good, they lied to us because they couldn't trust us not to hoard.
And that makes you think, what else might they be lying about?
Is there anything else they're lying about for our own good?
I don't know.
Number three, as Katie Hyde on Twitter shows us, and I'll show you these screenshots, the media really has this creepy tendency to latch on to a talking point all at the same time.
Almost as if they're sitting around in a smoky room conspiring and coming up with their plots and their talking points and everything.
Which of course they aren't, but you can see where conspiracy theories come from sometimes because of how coordinated this sort of stuff looks.
So, these media people, all at once, started using this talking point that if 100,000 people die from the coronavirus, that will be twice as many as died in the Vietnam War.
Twice as many as the Vietnam War.
And as some of them are phrasing it, Trump will have then overseen the 100,000 deaths, which is twice as much as the Vietnam War.
So you're tying in Trump, you're tying in the Vietnam War.
Now it's like we talked about yesterday.
The media yesterday had been blaring these headlines that more people have died of the virus than died during 9-11.
So it's the same kind of thing.
But why is that a legitimate or helpful comparison?
And why can you say more have died from the virus than 9-11, but you can't say 27,000 fewer people have died from the virus than died during a mild flu season?
Both are true.
If you look at the numbers right now, both are true.
More have died on 9-11, but significantly less at this point have died than died from the flu.
Both accurate statements.
But both are equally as unhelpful in terms of quantifying and putting this in perspective.
But one of those unhelpful analogies is blared all over the place, or comparisons, is blared all over the place, while the other one, if you dare mention that, you're going to be metaphorically stoned to death by the media.
And with this Vietnam War thing, 100,000 is twice as many as died during the Vietnam War.
Well, yeah, okay, that's true, but so what?
What does that mean?
We're not talking about a war.
It's that comparison.
What is that comparison supposed to do?
Why tell us that?
Why not say 100,000 is twice as many as die in a normal flu season?
Well, is it because that actually makes the virus sound a little bit less scary?
See, if you tell people that based on the projections, you know, we might have, you could even say two to three times as many people die as die from a normal flu season.
When you put it like that, it sounds bad.
It sounds serious.
But then you start thinking, is that bad enough to justify destroying the entire economy and shutting everything down?
It's really bad, but I don't know.
You know, you start thinking that way when you frame it like that.
But when you say twice as many will die as died in Vietnam War, then you think, well, that was a war.
I mean, you think, so this is like twice as bad as a war?
Okay, well, that's totally different.
So it's all about conditioning the way we think about this.
That's what the media is doing.
Number four, this is good, very inspiring.
Yesterday was the Trans Day of Visibility, whatever that means, and the New Jersey state government sent out this message.
It says, In New Jersey, our strength is our diversity.
Hashtag Trans Day of Visibility.
I just wanted to call your attention to that because I'm very glad that New Jersey is taking time out in the middle of a crisis to preach about diversity and trans rights.
Because that's the sort of thing we want our state governments to be focused on, right?
That's what we're looking for.
We want to talk about diversity.
Right.
Number five, reading now from ABC News headline, inmates charged with violent crimes poised for release due to COVID-19.
Two men allegedly involved in a robbery where a New York City police detective was killed in a friendly fire were among the violent offenders on the list of inmates slated to be released from the infamous Rikers Island jail complex due to the coronavirus pandemic.
I'm not going to read this entire thing.
In fact, this is just one article about them releasing prisoners.
They're doing it in New York City.
They're doing it in California.
There was, I was looking at a tweet from, tried to find it here.
Let's see.
Reporter in Boston tweet Massachusetts highest court considering if certain prisoners slash detainees should be released because of coronavirus threats 25 investigates has learned a Bristol County judge already released accused child rapist Matthew Paris DA tells me his attorney argued asthma puts him at risk now and the article in ABC News even says and the New York City is admitting that And this is, so we're talking about two different places here, but in the case of New York City, they're admitting that some of these people being released do pose a high risk to society.
But we're going to release them anyway.
An accused child rapist is obviously a high risk individual, but we're going to release him into society because he is at risk because of his asthma.
Now, I would tend to say if you rape a child and he's only accused, But if he did it, you know, if you did it and you raped a child and you have asthma and you get coronavirus, I'm not too worried about that.
I think that's sort of on you.
That's your problem to deal with.
If you don't want to go to prison, where there might be a coronavirus epidemic that runs through it, maybe don't rape a child.
Right?
That would be my thought.
So what we're doing across the country, what we find in these various states and localities, is we're releasing prisoners and accused child rapists and people who are known to be serious threats to society.
We're releasing them, but we're arresting pastors.
That makes a lot of sense, doesn't it?
Nothing to object to.
How could you possibly object to any of this?
No, you can't.
Unless you hate everyone's grandmas and you want to see everyone's grandmas dead.
It's the only way you could possibly object.
Now let's move on to your daily cancellation.
And before we do, I want to mention again what we've been telling you about, the All Access Live show.
If you haven't had a chance to check out some of these, then tune in tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern Time, 5 p.m.
Pacific.
In fact, I believe I will be the one.
I will be the one for the All Access Live show tonight.
And it's just kind of a Q&A.
I enjoy it.
It's a way of sort of getting past the isolation and finding a little bit of company for you and for us.
It's therapeutic for us as well.
It's part of the reason we're doing this and it's very relaxed.
It's not an official kind of show.
The original idea was to have the all-access Shows roll out in a few months only for all access members, but because of this crisis that we're all in We have rolled it out for all daily wire members, and we move the timeline up, so we're doing it now So if you're around it tonight at 8 p.m.
Eastern 5 p.m.
Pacific and you're a daily wire member then join us for the show and if you're not a daily wire member then become one and You can be a part of that Part of that experience too.
Okay, today for our daily cancellation, we're going to cancel a certain mentality, I guess actually, is maybe what we're cancelling, instead of one particular individual.
And that is the mentality, the belief, that parents can't be teachers to their own kids, or shouldn't be.
Last week I mentioned the Washington Post.
Posted an article that said that all of this homeschooling that's going on during the quarantine is going to set our kids back.
It's going to set back an entire generation of kids.
Our kids are going to be set back by having their own parents teach them.
And now there's this viral post on Facebook.
I'm not going to put the guy's name out there because I'm not trying to send a mob after him.
And I do think that he means well, right?
So I don't think there's anything sinister going on here.
But it's a viral post.
I saw it on Facebook.
I've also had a bunch of people email it to me and ask for my comment on it.
Here's the post by this principal that he put up on Facebook.
Facebook, says, folks, I've got about 20 years in education and I'm a school principal.
I cannot emphasize enough how important it is for parents to not attempt to replicate
the school environment, daily routine, or curriculum instruction at home.
Don't make up worksheets or download a curriculum guide to follow at home.
Don't set recess breaks and don't reconfigure your house to include a classroom area.
You are not being asked to homeschool your kids.
We are at day two of a system shutdown.
This was a couple weeks ago, I guess.
Your kids are probably still digesting the fact that they may not get to see their friends and teachers in the foreseeable future, not to mention we are in the middle of a global health crisis.
Little Susie is not in any position to learn a new math concept today.
Modern education isn't what we experienced as kids.
The best thing you can do, and the closest to their educational reality, is to do things with them.
Play a board game, do the dishes, sing a song, have them help you do the laundry, bake cookies, dance in the kitchen, go sliding, have a boil up in the yard, I don't know what that is, and have them shovel the driveway.
Also, give them alone time, screen time, and ask them to tell you a story.
Be with them and show them that everything will be okay.
You are their parents and family members, not their teachers.
Whatever happens, we will make sure your child has the tools needed to succeed in school when the time comes.
For now, be a family.
Okay.
Means well.
Right?
And some of what he says here, the principal, is true.
You should be doing things with your kids, and all the things that he mentions that you should do with your kid, I think are great things to do.
I don't know what a boil-up is, but that sounds good also.
Problem, though, a couple big problems.
First of all, just the concept of a school administrator helpfully telling parents what to do with their own kids.
Not even framing it like, here are some ideas, or this is my opinion, but this is what you need to do as a parent with your own child.
Now, and as I said, this is very common with school administrators, that they have this kind of attitude, where they're going to tell the parents what to do.
And most of the time, they don't mean any harm by it.
They're just trying to help you out.
They're school administrators.
They know more than you do about your own kid and about how to handle kids because they work in a school and you don't.
So they're just going to tell you what you need to do.
Just because it's well-intentioned doesn't make it right.
It doesn't make it any less annoying or any less troubling, in fact, that this is the kind of attitude that school administrators have.
And then there's the second big problem of You are their parents, not their teachers.
That is the, pun intended, the mother of all false dichotomies.
Talk about a false choice.
Be their parent or their teacher.
No, actually, as a parent, you're both.
You are not only a teacher, but you are their most important teacher.
Even if you don't homeschool.
Even if it's a normal situation and they're going to school for five days a week, you're still their most important teacher.
And the majority of lessons that they take out of childhood, they're going to take from you.
Like it or not, good or bad, you are their first, primary, most important teacher.
By far.
So you are their parent, not their teacher.
That is just wrong.
And again, it's a common attitude among school administrators, among some teachers, not all, in the public school system.
Where they kind of, the attitude they have to the parents is, hey, butt out.
This is not your purview.
You don't have a specialty.
You don't have a degree in this.
I do.
And so don't attempt to teach your own kids.
As if it's rocket science, right?
It's as if someone who doesn't have any training tried to build a literal rocket ship on their own.
Okay, in that case, you could say, you are not a rocket scientist.
Don't do that.
But teaching your kid actually is not rocket science.
I'm not saying it's easy, but any parent can do it, in fact.
Although what he says about not replicating the public school environment, a lot of that is true.
I agree with that.
Maybe not for the reasons that he says it, but it's true.
I think it's one of the advantages of homeschooling is that you don't have to have that kind of uber-structured environment, although you still do want some structure.
And some of the things that you do, you know, what was he mentioned?
Recess breaks and that sort of thing.
Reconfiguring your house to include a classroom area.
I mean, we homeschool.
We have a classroom area downstairs.
I think that is good stuff to do.
But at the end of the day, as a parent, you make those decisions.
Okay, let's go to emails.
We have a little bit of time to read through some of these.
We got a bunch of why I'm wrongs today, and we'll go through them quickly as we can.
This is from Jeffrey says, Matt, you chose the wrong horse to ride with that pastor story.
That pastor is a charlatan in it for the money.
That's the only reason he held the service.
Usually you criticize snake oil salesmen like him.
Well, yeah, Jeffrey, that's not really relevant.
If it's true, I don't know The pastor we talked about yesterday that got arrested, I don't know anything about him.
Not a thing.
It's the first time I've heard his name.
Maybe he's a charlatan, maybe he's not.
That's not the point.
He's not the horse I'm riding, okay?
I'm riding the First Amendment, and I'm saying that we should still have the right to hold a worship service without getting arrested.
Charlatan or not.
From Sean, I'm a conservative and a Christian, but I thought you were extremely irresponsible in your commentary.
Parentheses show and op-ed.
Yesterday re-church closings.
Pastors who hold church gatherings are being foolishly reckless.
We have to speak out against this behavior that puts others at risk, not endorse it as you have done.
That's my two cents.
Still love the show.
Thank you.
Well, Sean, I think that you're missing the point a little bit.
I never said that I think pastors should be holding worship services.
I didn't say that.
Whether doing so is reckless, as you say, is not my point.
In fact, many churches, most it seems to me, chose to shut down voluntarily before the government got involved.
My church did.
All the churches in my area that I'm aware of shut down before it was forced on them by the state.
And you may have noticed, I never criticized any of those churches.
I didn't bring the issue up until yesterday.
Why is that?
Because I think there's a big difference.
Because to me, there's a big difference between churches choosing to follow social distancing guidelines, as most of them were, and the government enforcing those guidelines at gunpoint.
Once that happens, I think we have a problem, a huge problem.
And when I say gunpoint, a lot of people took issue with me.
I kept saying the government is enforcing this at gunpoint.
Yes, they are.
Everything the government does is at gunpoint.
Because the implication is always, we've got guys with guns and they don't have to actually brand this shit.
Every time the government uses force, every time the government makes an arrest, enforces a law, it is always done at gunpoint.
I'm not saying the government should never enforce any law.
I'm just saying that's the reality.
And if they're shutting down churches, they are doing it, yes, at gunpoint.
From Laura says, Dear Matt, I've been a fan for a while, I'm a conservative Christian, but I strongly disagree with the direction you've gone recently.
The coronavirus is a public health crisis, and the government is doing what must be done to curb it.
Whining about your freedoms and the First Amendment just feels petty to me, and it seems like you don't appreciate that lives are at stake.
Okay, Laura, well, you say you're a conservative Christian, you agree with the government summarily labeling all churches non-essential, closing them indefinitely, and arresting pastors who hold worship services.
I just feel like that position Seems to be contrary to nearly every principle I associate with conservatism.
And that's where I stand.
From Ryan says, today is the first time I've ever questioned your status as the all-knowing king of the universe.
However, you're dead mistaken insofar as you think it's unconstitutional to suspend worship services.
Under Employment Division v. Smith, it is perfectly constitutional to restrict religion so long as the law is, quote, neutral and generally applicable as to its potential impact on every citizen equally and does not target a specific race, group, or religion.
It does not violate the First Amendment.
Even where the state interest is trivial, The government may adopt restrictions as long as the law fits the aforementioned parameters.
The greatest must fall to be humbled.
Okay, Ryan.
Well, first of all, I'm aware that the courts would probably allow this, but that really doesn't interest me very much, I have to be honest with you.
Every time we're talking about something like this and someone says, well, the court said it was okay, All right, I don't really care.
The courts allow a lot of things that are clearly wrong, clearly tyrannical, clearly outside the scope of what the law originally intended.
The courts, to remind you, have decided that you have a God-given right to kill your child.
You could tell me all day the court said it's okay.
I don't care.
It doesn't make it okay.
Now, I understand, practically speaking, it gives the government the authority to do it, but also remember that the judicial branch is part of the government, so this is the government giving itself authority to do things.
So what you're basically telling me is the government has given itself the authority to do it, therefore it has the authority.
I understand that that is, practically speaking, how it works, but I still don't think it's right.
That's it.
My argument is that arresting pastors, banning worship services, banning people from gathering indefinitely, as is happening, This clearly represents an annihilation of, or at least a suspension of, the First Amendment.
The First Amendment guarantees, as an inalienable right, the very thing the government, right now, today, will arrest you for doing.
Now, the courts can say that's okay.
I just disagree.
I think it's clearly wrong, and it obviously represents a suspension of those rights.
Nobody wants to see it that way.
But the First Amendment says you can do it.
Right now, the government is saying, if you do it, you'll be arrested.
How can they both exist?
How can we pretend that the First Amendment is still right now active and functional while you'll be arrested for doing the things that the First Amendment says you have a right to do?
But as for the court's decisions there...
You know, you say neutral and generally applicable.
Well, I would argue that the shutdowns and quarantines are neither of those.
The government is subjectively deeming certain businesses and organizations as essential, while labeling others non-essential, then closing the ones that it has decided are non-essential.
So now the government says, well, you know, if you're non-essential, we can shut you down.
Who decides if it's not essential?
They do.
And there's not any real calculus here.
It's just, and it appears to be very arbitrary.
So, for example, in my state, abortion clinics are essential, beer stores are essential, fast food drive-thru is essential, Starbucks drive-thru is essential.
All of those things are essential.
I disagree.
I don't think they're essential.
And I think a church is more essential.
They're at least equally as inessential, depending on how you look at it, right?
But that's just my opinion.
It's a matter of opinion.
And it's the government's opinion.
Or these individual governors or whoever's making these decisions, depending on what level we're talking about.
Now, I'm not arguing, by the way, that we should shut down all those places I just mentioned.
I'm glad that some of them get to stay open.
At least there's some semblance of an economy still going.
So I wouldn't want to see those shut down.
I'm just saying that, obviously...
When you're talking about they're shutting down, there's a pandemic, and supposedly millions are going to die if we don't do it, and you're keeping the beer stores open, the beer distributors?
Come on.
I'm glad they're open.
I have taken advantage of that and gone and gotten some beer during this, okay?
It's helped me get through the difficult and trying time.
But essential?
Obviously not.
So if you're really taking this seriously, if this is really necessary to stop the pandemic, then you would shut that down.
So you're saying it's worth the risk?
I went to a liquor store the other day and there was easily, I don't know, 20 people in there milling around.
It's essential.
Okay.
But the court will say it's alright.
Alright, fine.
The court says that.
I don't agree.
But thank you for that email anyway.
And thank you for all the emails.
As I said, I have to say I shouldn't be shocked.
I am a little bit shocked.
I didn't expect... I expected an argument.
I didn't think I was saying anything that would be very popular.
Nothing I say, I guess, is popular.
It seems like.
But I wasn't expecting Just based on the reaction I've gotten from emails and things, it seems to be like 70-30 against my position and in favor of arresting pastors.
And that's just, you know, that is an anecdotal based on just the feedback I've gotten personally, but I was surprised by that, I have to say.
We'll leave it there, though.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
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.
Our supervising producers are Mathis Glover and Robert Sterling.
Our technical producer is Austin Stevens, edited by Danny D'Amico, and our audio is mixed by Robin Fenderson.
The Matt Wall Show is a Daily Wire production, copyright Daily Wire 2020.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
We're heading into the whirlwind as the virus peaks, and the question is, how can we get good information?
