Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Dr. Fauci has seemed to imply that the president should enact a national stay-at-home order, which of course would be wildly unconstitutional, not to mention redundant and useless. Meanwhile Dr. Birx is lecturing Americans for failing to follow her instructions. Are we giving too much power and trust to the medical experts? Also, Five Headlines, including new recommendations that we “socially distance” from our own families at home. And today I have the distinct honor and privilege of canceling Mayor Bill de Blasio.
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, Dr. Fauci has seemed to imply that the president should enact a national stay-at-home order, which of course would be wildly unconstitutional, not to mention redundant and useless.
Meanwhile, Dr. Birx is lecturing Americans for failing to follow her instructions precisely.
Blaming us because the curve isn't flattening like she thought that it would.
Are we giving too much power and perhaps too much trust to the medical experts in government and maybe the government in general?
We'll talk about that.
Also, five headlines including new recommendations that we socially distance from our own families at home.
And today I have the distinct honor and privilege of canceling Mayor Bill de Blasio.
Much deserved.
We'll get to all of that coming up.
Let's start with this.
Presidents Burks and Fauci Who seem to be, in many ways, basically the presidents now.
We're on TV yesterday, of course, and they're on TV every day, all day, pretty much.
And there were a couple of moments with these two that I want to go back and review.
First, let's look at Dr. Fauci on CNN seeming to indicate that he would support a national stay-at-home order from the president for the entire country.
And he doesn't say that exactly, but he really seems to be implying it.
Listen to this.
Dr. Fauci, we want to get to viewer questions in just a moment.
First, knowing the science, does it make sense to you that some states are still not issuing stay-at-home orders?
I mean, whether there should be a federally mandated directive for that or not, I guess that's more of a political question, but just scientifically, doesn't everybody have to be on the same page with this stuff?
Yeah.
I think so, Anderson.
I don't understand why that's not happening.
As you said, you know, the tension between federally mandated versus states' rights to do what they want is something I don't want to get into.
But if you look at what's going on in this country, I just don't understand why we're not doing that.
We really should be.
So he says he doesn't want to get into the tension between states' rights and the federal government and all of that.
Well, yeah, he's a doctor, not a constitutional scholar.
Also not an economist.
He has an expertise in one area.
Unfortunately, there are many more areas that are being implicated in everything that's going on right now.
This is not just a medical situation.
There's also an economic aspect of it.
There's a legal aspect of it.
Which is why I think it's a problem when doctors are allowed to set the policy, set the course, and decide everything.
They get to decide everything that we do.
But they only know about one thing.
Now, I've said from the very beginning that when it comes to the medical scientific questions, We have no choice but to go to the people who have expertise in that area.
I don't know much about viruses or diseases.
Most of us don't.
And so you have to go to sources.
Now, that doesn't mean that you implicitly trust just one person, because they happen to be on TV all the time.
But you look at a collection of different sources, and that's where you go.
But that's for just that part of the problem.
As I said, there are many other parts, very important parts, and we're not going to go to the doctors to tell us about that.
They don't necessarily know anything about all the other relevant factors.
So as far as the doctors are concerned, sure, destroy the economy.
Destroy everybody's lives if you have to.
Fauci says that it's just an inconvenience.
That's what he said yesterday.
It's an economic inconvenience.
He said that on the day when it was announced that there were 6 million unemployed people officially put on the rolls last week, totaling up to 10 in two weeks, 10 million.
And he writes that off as an inconvenience.
According to his medical opinion, destroying the livelihoods of tens of millions of Americans is an inconvenience.
And it seems he also thinks that the president acting in a blatantly unconstitutional way and assuming the dictatorial power to lock 330 million Americans in their home is something that perhaps should happen, and I'm sure he would call that just, at most, a constitutional inconvenience from his medical point of view.
But again, that's not a medical question.
His medical point of view is irrelevant to the constitutional question.
It's irrelevant to the economic question.
Yet he's asked about these areas anyway, and he has no problem pontificating.
Meanwhile, here's Dr. Birx at the White House presser yesterday, and she is very upset with all of you for screwing things up.
Listen to this.
I know you've seen the slope in the United States versus the slope in Italy.
And we have to change that slope.
We have to change the logarithmic curve that we're on.
We see country after country having done that.
What it means in the United States is not everyone is doing it.
So we're only as strong as every community, every county, every state, every American following the guidelines to a T. And I can tell by the curve, and as it is today, that not every American is following it.
And so this is really a call to action.
We see Spain, we see Italy, we see France, we see Germany, and we see others beginning to bend their curves.
We can bend ours, but it means everybody has to take that same responsibility as Americans.
You naughty Americans.
You naughty, naughty Americans.
This is all your fault, you know.
The curve isn't flattening, and it's your fault, says Dr. Birx.
In her nightly lecture.
You see, if the curve doesn't flatten, it couldn't possibly be because the strategy that she has suggested is wrong.
Right?
Now, that can't be it.
That can't be it.
The strategy can't be ineffective.
And it can't be that the models that they're using might be wrong, built on faulty assumptions, using bad data.
That can't be it.
No, no, never that.
Never that.
You see, it's you.
You're the problem.
You're the naughty child.
You dumb peon.
You're the problem.
You're screwing it up.
Not the bureaucrats.
It's all you.
It's always going to be you.
Because, understand this, the people in charge The people doing all of this, calling the shots, they will never, ever, ever, ever, ever accept blame for anything, ever.
Nothing will ever be their fault.
They're not gonna stand up there and say, we got this wrong, we apologize, it's not gonna happen.
No matter how at fault they are, they won't accept it.
They're always gonna shift the blame to you.
And me.
And us.
And it works!
Because they've got Americans sniping at each other, calling the cops on their own neighbors for being outside for the wrong reason, Screaming at each other, while the politicians and bureaucrats, whose incompetence caused this mess, escape without blame.
They get to point the finger over at the rabble, the mob, and say, it's all them, look at them.
Listen, Birx and Fauci seem like nice people.
I'm sure they're very smart in their fields of expertise.
I'm sure they know much more than I do in those areas.
So we should certainly go to them for advice and insight into the virus itself and how it behaves.
Again, even on that subject, we shouldn't appoint them as the official single authorities.
But there are two big problems, as far as I can tell, with what we're doing right now and how we're approaching this.
And how we're utilizing these experts.
Number one.
Like we've already covered.
These people know nothing about the economic and constitutional implications of the policies they recommend, and they made it clear that those implications are irrelevant, not important, mere inconveniences.
In their minds, you know, this is all a matter of avoiding risk, medical risk, specifically, and preventing the most number of people from dying from the virus right now.
That's what they're trying to do.
They don't want you to die from the virus right now.
Now, if people die from other things brought on by a Great Depression, that's not their concern.
If people die because they can't get basic food and shelter because they can't afford it, or they die from suicide or drug overdoses because they've been locked down and they're losing all their livelihood and they're falling into despair, the doctors aren't concerned about that.
They're not focused on stopping those deaths.
And if the virus comes back later and ravages our society once we open things up again and we're all impoverished, and it comes back again in the middle of a depression so now we have a pandemic and a depression on our hands, well, that's not so much their concern either.
Their goal is to stop people from dying from this right now.
And the general suffering and misery and loss of liberty and destruction of our way of life, none of that is their concern.
Because this is not, by the way, this is not just, we focus so much on the deaths.
How do we save the most number of people?
It's not just that.
There are other things too.
Right?
Suffering and misery and destroying someone's business, taking away everything they've worked for, that might not be a death, a physical death, but it's still very important.
But the question is, why are we letting them essentially set the policy, set the course, steer the whole ship, when they're only looking at this one narrow aspect of the overall crisis?
Why do we have them on TV every single day, telling us what to do, delivering lectures, making decrees, and not other experts?
Why can't we hear from an economic expert to give us projections on what's going to happen with this Great Depression that's coming up?
Why can't we hear from a constitutional law expert As far as Fauci is concerned, it's becoming clear that from his perspective, we should stay locked in our homes under house arrest until there's a vaccine.
Because that's how to prevent the most people from dying of the disease, maybe.
Now, it's also how you utterly annihilate our civilization and ruin every single thing that makes this country great, makes this country what it is or was.
Fauci would throw all of that on the burn pile if it was up to him.
But it shouldn't be up to him, because he's not the president.
And it shouldn't even be up to the president, because the president is a president and not a dictator.
Second thing.
Second issue I have with the medical experts in the government.
Extending beyond Fauci and Birx.
This isn't just about them.
It's also not just about the medical experts.
I mean, politicians, bureaucrats in general.
All these people.
The government generally.
My issue here is that they're putting it all on us, blaming us, lecturing us, telling us that we have to give up our jobs, our liberty, our income.
They're not giving up any of these things, by the way.
They still have a job.
They still have an income.
They have all the freedom in the world.
In fact, they have more freedom.
They have more power.
So they're giving nothing up.
We give up the power, income, job, everything, lifestyle.
We give that up.
They give up nothing.
Let's be clear about that.
These people who are on TV, the people in government, they're giving up nothing.
It's all on us.
When they talk about shared sacrifice, no, no, no.
We're the ones making the sacrifice.
Now, the actual doctors and surgeons that are in the hospitals, they're making a huge sacrifice, of course.
But the politicians and bureaucrats, they're not sacrificing anything.
They're fine.
Their job is secure.
Everything is secure for them.
You know what I haven't seen from any of these people?
Accountability.
Responsibility.
We're supposed to trust them implicitly, do everything they say, even though they screwed up.
They screwed up majorly, repeatedly, catastrophically, and now they're destroying the economy and our lives to cover their own asses.
All this destruction of the economy, it is a CYA, cover your ass move, by the government.
And we don't even get so much as an apology from them.
Not even so much as that.
Like, hey, gee, sorry.
Think about this.
From December to February, while coronavirus was taking hold in China, over 700,000 travelers from China entered this country.
I want to say that again.
From December to February, 700,000 travelers from China were allowed to enter this country.
The very government officials who let 700,000 travelers from China into this country now want you to know that the curve isn't flattening and it's your fault.
And also trust everything they say, of course.
They were too stupid to prevent three quarters of a million people from China from coming into this country, but trust them now.
They know what's up, you don't.
Don't trust yourself, right?
You can't trust yourself.
That's why we have to shut down the whole economy.
Because when I have suggested so many times, and so many others have suggested, other ways that we could deal with this, you know, still have the economy going, but quarantine the elderly, the sick, practice, practice, still practice a version of social distancing, good hygiene, wash your hands, wear a mask, even a homemade mask, where appropriate.
And what I'm told about that is, you know, we can't do that because we can't trust people.
People are stupid.
They won't follow it.
They won't follow those rules.
Okay, so we can't trust ourselves, we can't trust our neighbor, but we can trust these people?
We can trust these people we see on TV every night?
The government officials?
We can trust them?
Do you trust them more than you trust yourself?
Do you trust their models and projections more than you trust your own common sense?
I don't.
Also consider this, as recently as a month ago, the government was telling us, don't wear masks.
Don't wear them.
The Surgeon General sent out a snarky tweet, okay, not that long ago, saying, seriously people, don't wear masks.
In all caps, stop wearing masks.
It's not effective.
Shouting at us.
Belittling us.
You morons, stop wearing masks.
Turns out masks are effective.
We should have been wearing them.
And they knew it.
It doesn't have to be, and we don't have to say, well, we can't wear medical masks because then we're taking them away from the medical professionals who need it.
Yeah, homemade masks.
Put a scarf over your face.
It's better than nothing.
It's a lot better than nothing.
They knew that, okay?
And they lied to us.
For our own good, of course.
For our own good.
Because, you know why they lied to us?
Because they couldn't trust us.
Because if they said, yeah, you know what?
Masks actually probably will help you not get sick.
Then they were worried we would all run out and start hoarding medical masks.
They can't trust us, so they're going to lie to us.
Again, I ask, can we trust them?
We can't trust ourselves at all, apparently.
We're a bunch of idiots.
Can we trust them?
Because that's the problem.
If you endorse the idea of the government lying to us because we can't be trusted, what you're saying is we can definitely trust them 100%.
We can trust them so much that they can withhold the truth from us or lie about it.
And we can just trust their judgment on what truth we need to hear or should hear.
How many people died because of those lies?
But now, shut down the economy, give up your job, on their word at their command.
And the models they're using, the models have changed time and again, have been proven false, have been based on bad data, bad assumptions.
So they come up with new models, never taking any responsibility for the old models failing.
They say when we hear about there not being enough masks, enough ventilators, enough hospital beds.
Well, whose fault is that?
Whose fault is that?
It's not my fault.
It's not your fault.
We're not responsible for there not being enough medical masks.
What were we supposed to do about that?
It's not even China's fault.
We pay people in government to take care of these things, and they failed.
Of course, every single individual government official that's asked about this, it's not my fault.
No, no, no.
It's not my fault.
Look at them over there.
Not us.
In fact, you know what?
It's all the dumb Americans who are buying all the medical masks when they don't need them.
Well, in fact, it turns out they do need them.
In fact, many of the medical experts now given godlike powers to reshape society in their image, these are the same people who are supposed to have us prepared for this and failed.
But rather than be held responsible, rather than be tarred and feathered in the street like we probably used to, like we would have handled it in the old days, they get more power.
They get rewarded with more power for being incompetent.
See, that's what happens in government now.
They fail, they're incompetent, they screw up, and the reward is more power for them.
And so many of us go along with it by turning to each other and blaming each other.
Tucker Carlson... I mean, even the stuff like with the toilet paper.
All of the snarky sniping that we did about people hoarding toilet paper.
First of all, once the run on toilet paper had started, It made a lot of sense to go out and get toilet paper because you need it.
I mean, the thing is, I've been to the store several times and several different stores over the course of this quarantine for things that I need.
I haven't seen toilet paper anywhere.
Now, as it happens, we did stock up on toilet paper, not in a panicked way, but if we hadn't, we wouldn't have any right now.
You know, I got a family of six.
We need toilet paper now.
So we all look at each other and like laugh at each other.
What are you doing buying toilet paper?
Well, because I need it.
You moron.
What do you think?
I need it and it's nowhere to be found.
But yet again, I put that on the government.
They should have had us better prepared.
They should have, you know, rather than say, because here's what the government did.
The government went from, this is nothing, this is nothing, this is nothing, don't worry about it, to all of a sudden, it's the end of the world.
Like there was a sudden change.
And with that sudden change, people panicked and they started running out and buying things Now, if the government had been honest, and on top of this, since like December, and it started saying, you know, here's what's going on, it's a concern, it's not the end of the world, but we're going to start taking measures, there would have been a gradual thing, a gradual awareness that would have been raised among the people, and things would be very different right now.
Tucker Carlson made this point on his show yesterday, I think it's a good point.
If two months ago, three months ago, if we had started quarantining the nursing homes, the elderly, the sick, had people wearing masks, even homemade ones, there would be far fewer dead by now.
We would still have an economy.
We wouldn't have 10 million jobs lost in two weeks.
The medical experts who should have been recommending those steps back then didn't.
Instead, they were saying, don't wear masks.
Don't worry about the virus.
It's not a threat.
They were wrong.
They were catastrophically wrong.
And now they get to shut down society and take your job and your livelihood and your home and your food out of your fridge to cover their tracks.
And if all this doesn't work, if it backfires, which it will, it already is, it's still not going to be their fault.
Never theirs.
Never ever theirs.
Let's move to headlines.
Number one, the governor of New Jersey, in an effort to one-up the other governors around him, has made a rather striking suggestion.
Listen.
If you do not need to be out, then we need you to stay at home.
Please, God, stay at home.
And even when you're at home, keep your distance between yourself and other family members.
What was that?
You want us to socially distance from each other at home?
You see there's a competition going on here, don't you?
Each governor tries to be the one taking it the most seriously.
So we go from shutdowns, to Northam locking down the whole state for two months, to now New Jersey saying, oh yeah, well we're locking down the state, and we're gonna say you can't go near your own family.
It is good advice though, because in fact, kids don't respect personal space at all.
And so I've had to call my, I've had to call the police on my kids four times today already.
To report them for infringing on my personal space, on my protective bubble.
It's all about being a good citizen.
But fortunately, I can say my three-year-old was given just a $5,000 fine, which, you know, not a big deal.
It only took him a few decades of allowance to be able to pay that, though my six-year-old twins are facing 60 days in jail.
So that's, you know, that's unfortunate, but this is what happens.
Number two, and the competition of course continues with now Vermont throwing its hat into the ring.
Vermont is ordering retailers, essential retailers, quote-unquote, in the state to stop selling non-essential items.
So, Vermont is going to tell you what you're allowed to sell.
And reading from wcvb.com, according to the state, large retailers must cease in-person sales of items that include, but are not limited to, arts and crafts, beauty supplies, carpet and flooring, clothing, consumer electronics, entertainment, furniture, home and garden, jewelry, paint, photo services, sports equipment, toys.
The state says that As the state says, stores must restrict access to non-essential goods by closing aisles, closing portions of the store, or removing items from the floor.
The order says showrooms and garden sections of large home improvement centers should be closed.
Okay.
Maybe at this point the government should just come up with an official list, an official shopping list for us.
Maybe they can assign, maybe the government can assign us all a shopping list every week.
Telling us what to buy.
Right down to the specific food items and brands and everything.
So I need it to be really specific.
Like, tell me exactly what type of canned pasta sauce I can buy.
What are the non-essential pasta sauces versus the essential ones?
That's what I want to know.
We can't have people going out and buying non-essential ragu.
Okay.
And which soda brand is essential?
Obviously, you know, like 7-Up versus Sprite.
Sprite's going to be essential, not 7-Up.
Coke or Pepsi, which is the essential one?
And that's a real controversy.
But you would think this is a matter of opinion.
Just like you would think a lot of these essential versus non-essential designations are a matter of opinion.
And they are, but the government's opinion is what matters.
Trust whatever they say.
Basically, the goal here is to remove all personal choice from individuals, because we're too stupid and we're too incompetent.
We need the guiding hand of government to come in and direct every last aspect of our lives.
Now, of course, people in government are dumber and even less competent than we are, but that's fine, because they're in the government, so they know best.
Number three, this is very interesting.
Professor Bakhti, a microbiologist, has written an open letter to the Chancellor of Germany, but really it could have been written to any Western world leader, and he has a number of questions about the coronavirus that he's asking, raising several interesting points, and it's worth reading the whole thing.
Go to dailywire.com.
They've got an article about it.
It's worth reading the whole thing, but let me read this particular section of his letter.
He says, the mistake is being made worldwide to report virus-related deaths as soon as
it is established that the virus was present at the time of death, regardless of other
factors.
This violates the principles of only when it is certain that an agent has played a significant role in the disease or death may a diagnosis be made.
The Association of the Scientific Medical Societies of Germany expressly writes in its guidelines, in addition to the cause of death, a causal chain must be stated with the corresponding underlying disease in third place on the death certificate.
Occasionally four linked causal chains must also be stated.
At present, there is no official information on whether, at least in retrospect, more critical analyses of medical records have been undertaken to determine how many deaths were actually caused by the virus.
Okay.
What are you saying here?
Point is, we know so many of these deaths are attributed to the virus among previously ill people.
We keep hearing that.
You know, people in their 80s and 90s dying.
People who have pre-existing conditions dying.
Okay, well, if somebody with the virus And terminal cancer, for example, dies.
Do we call that a virus death or a cancer death?
Because my understanding, and I don't know the answer to this question, but my understanding of it, at least in normal times, if somebody has terminal cancer and they, let's say, contract pneumonia and die, what we usually will say is they succumb to cancer or they lost the battle with cancer or something like that.
You know, when someone with terminal cancer eventually dies of something related to the fact that they had cancer, we don't usually, we wouldn't say he died of pneumonia, we would just say he died of cancer.
So what are we doing here?
If someone dies and the cause isn't clear, but they have the virus, do we automatically assume they died of it?
Is dying with the virus the same as dying from it, as far as the way it's categorized?
It's a good question.
In fact, I saw a really tragic, terrible headline.
Maybe you saw this of, I think it was a six-week-old baby who died.
Just horrifying.
But the headlines that I saw, so I looked at several headlines and several news articles because I was trying to figure this out, right?
And the headline said, baby with coronavirus dies, or baby discovered to have coronavirus dies, like something like that.
Baby's death linked to coronavirus.
Those are the headlines.
That's very strange, isn't it?
It's just a strange way of putting it.
And I read about five or six different articles about this particular case, and I'm trying to find out, did they do an autopsy with the results came back and they found that the coronavirus was the cause of the death?
Maybe.
Like, I don't know.
But it seems that for right now, as far as we know, the baby had coronavirus and tragically died.
But you put it in the headlines with the assumption that the baby died from coronavirus.
And this is not a small thing.
Okay?
And the problem is that when someone like myself tries to make this point, we're accused of being cruel or heartless or what have you.
That's the opposite of the case.
What I'm saying is in the media, it is malpractice.
To terrify people, to terrify mothers and fathers who have babies, put that in the headlines without making sure that the virus is actually what caused the death.
You're just terrifying people.
And you're doing it for clicks, that's why.
It's not because you care about the child or you're concerned about it.
No.
You put it in the headlines, phrased that way.
The responsible thing is to wait to find out what caused the death.
And then to report on it.
But you don't wait.
You put it up right away.
Not because you care about the child.
Far from it.
It's because you're exploiting the child's death to get clicks and to scare people.
And the reason you want to scare people is because it means more clicks and more attention and more ratings.
Number four, different industries are finding ways to adapt to the new reality.
You'd think that one industry that would have trouble is the clubbing industry.
DJs who play in nightclubs specifically, what are they going to do?
Well, they're trying to adapt, and so now we've got something called cloud clubbing, which means that DJs are doing their thing, their DJ thing, playing music, and they'll stream it for people to listen to in their homes.
So they're doing the DJ, then they're broadcasting it to people in their homes.
And we call that cloud clubbing.
Now I read that and I think, okay, so you've invented the radio is what you've done.
This is the radio, right?
This is a DJ in one place.
You've invented music radio.
You've invented rock radio.
Congratulations.
It's a DJ in one place playing music that is broadcast to other people in other places.
That's, that's basically what the radio does.
Different technology, but that's, I guess we could just call it cloud clubbing from now on.
Anytime you turn on the radio, doing a little cloud clubbing.
Number five, finally I want to show you this, a bit of a visual.
So if you're listening on iTunes right now or SoundCloud or whatever, you'll have to, when you get a chance, go check out the stream of this show so you can look at this visual because it really does lend perspective.
This is a graph, I should say, made by a guy on Twitter whose handle is at startup Damon.
And it shows, it shows the weekly jobless claims starting in the sixties.
Well, let me, let me just, we'll, we'll play this.
Uh, all right.
So it starts late in the sixties, go to the seventies.
You see the jobless claims weekly nineties, uh, goes up and down.
Like you would expect you have peaks and then we're going to see a big spike around 2010.
That's the last couple of weeks of jobless claims.
That's what we've done.
This is what we've done in our country.
But, don't worry, Dr. Fauci, just an inconvenience.
What you saw there in the chart?
Bunch of inconveniences.
Nothing more.
Okay, now we're going to move to our daily cancellation.
It gives me great joy and pleasure to cancel Mayor Bill de Blasio of New York A man who is less a man, really, than a sniveling, oafish troll, and easily one of the most incompetent clowns to ever hold major elected office in the United States, which is a hell of a bar to get over, I realize, but he has succeeded.
Here's Exhibit A. Actually, it's like Exhibit Z. I don't know.
There have been a lot of exhibits of this, but anyway, reading from the blaze, it says, Evangelist Franklin Graham's charity organization, Samaritan's Purse, opened up a temporary tent hospital in Central Park to help treat patients infected with COVID-19.
But New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio doesn't trust the organization not to discriminate against LGBTQ patients, Faithwire reported.
Samaritan's Purse set up a facility with 68 beds for the coronavirus patients in an attempt to ease the burden of overwhelmed hospitals.
De Blasio expressed distrust that the organization would treat LGBTQ people equally and reportedly sent city staffers to the site to monitor the situation.
De Blasio said, according to the New York Post, I said immediately to my team that we had to find out exactly what was happening.
Was there going to be an approach that was truly consistent with the values and laws of New York City, that everyone could be served and would be served and served equally?
We've received those assurances from the organization.
We're going to send people over from the mayor's office to monitor.
I'm very concerned that this is done right, but if it is done right, we need all the help we can get.
Okay.
Just so you know, there was of course never any reason to think, never any evidence, never any indication at all that this organization was going to discriminate against anybody.
So the only thing, what concerns Bill de Blasio is that it's a Christian organization.
That's what concerns him.
He's very concerned.
I'm Seth, very concerned.
Oh, Christians, Christians.
Now Christians are showing up on the scene.
Christians are showing up on the scene like they always show up every time there's a catastrophe or disaster or people are in need.
There's always Christians showing up.
So, Bill de Blasio must be concerned a lot.
Anytime there's a crisis, he must be very, very concerned because of all these sneaky little Christians who show up.
What are they doing around here?
It couldn't be that they're following Christ's command to help those in need.
No, it couldn't be that.
There's got to be something.
There's some sinister motivation there.
There must be something sinister.
And so de Blasio is concerned and he sends his goons out to monitor.
They're in the middle of a crisis and de Blasio is allocating resources to make sure that hospital workers are being sufficiently progressive and woke in the fulfillment of their medical responsibilities.
Think about that.
So Bill de Blasio, a well-deserving cancellation.
Okay, now I want to Briefly tell you about a couple other things still to do on the show.
First of all, the All Access show.
I wanted to tell you about that.
We've been talking about it and more and more people are joining in for the All Access live show.
We do it 8 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Central.
We do it every single night, at least every weeknight now.
And it's probably not always going to be that way.
Originally the idea was to do it every once in a while.
Just for our All Access members, but we've moved up the date.
We've opened it up to all Daily Wire members.
Just because in the middle of this national emergency, people are locked in their homes and need a little bit of companionship.
We all do.
A discussion, being able to talk to someone who's not immediately in your house with you is kind of nice as well.
And so that's what we've been doing, and I think the feedback has been great.
People have enjoyed it.
I've enjoyed it.
So make sure you tune in today at 8 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Central.
Now, moving on to emails as we wrap up the show for Friday.
Remember, you can email the show if you become a Daily Wire member.
You can submit emails to the mailbag.
This is from Chuck.
Says, during your show on Wednesday, you took issue with the government lying to the public by saying masks don't really help, so don't worry about wearing one.
I took issue with it today, so I've taken issue with it several times.
Then they came out later and said, yeah, that was kind of wrong.
We didn't want to cause panic and hoarding.
I'm not saying this was right or wrong, good or bad.
I just want to pose a couple of questions as food for thought.
Have you ever lied to your kids for their own good, and maybe your own good as well?
Something you knew if you told the truth about it, it would either end up badly for one of you, or they just flat out wouldn't get it.
Now you might say, but they are children.
We're adults.
It's not the same.
To that, I would direct your attention to idiots licking toilet seats, toiletries, and tubs of ice cream, or drinking beer off each other's butts on the beach, or any one of a hundred other things people, mostly young people, might do to spread this and other diseases.
They have the facts.
They know this is risky behavior, but they do it anyway.
Now, if there was a lie to tell that would get them to stop that nonsense, should it be told, I just wanted to hear your opinion and get a learned man's perspective.
I'm not really a learned man, so if you want a learned man's perspective, you got to talk to somebody else.
You got the wrong man for that.
I guess I already sort of addressed that earlier in the show.
No, I don't think the government should be lying to us for our own good or because they're afraid of what we would do with the truth.
Now, I'm not saying that everything that is true, the government should come out and say.
Obviously, there's classified information about various different things that they're not going to tell us about.
So, of course, that's one thing.
First of all, whether masks are effective in the middle of a pandemic, that should not be classified information.
And besides, it's not just that they withheld the information, they flat out lied and said it's not effective, don't do it, when it is effective and you should do it.
And these are so-called medical experts, right?
It's not like they just learned that medical masks are effective.
It never made sense to begin with, because they were saying, they're not effective, don't wear them.
Oh, by the way, also, we need to save them for doctors, because if doctors don't have it, it's a big crisis.
Well, if they're not effective, why do doctors wear them, right?
So clearly, it never made sense to begin with, and they didn't believe it.
No, should the government be withholding that information or lying to us because of the idiots who lick toilet seats and so on?
No.
No, because it's wrong, first of all, and we're supposed to live in a free country, and in a free country you don't have a government, or you shouldn't have a government.
We shouldn't tolerate a government that tells us lies for our own good.
And the third thing, as I mentioned, these people are idiots too.
Okay, who do you think these people in government are?
A lot of them were probably toilet seat lickers when they were younger, or worse.
Right?
So these are a bunch of morons also in government.
So if we can't trust the rabble, the mob, why can't we trust them?
Remember, they came from the rabble, they came from the mob.
They were appointed by the rabble and the mob.
Some of them were.
The bureaucrats certainly weren't elected by the mob, but were appointed by the people that the mob elected.
So, if you can't trust the mob, you can't trust them either.
They came from the same pool.
So I absolutely reject that.
I think, especially now, we need information.
We need the truth.
We need to be honest with people.
And it makes you think, what else are they lying about?
It erodes trust in our governing, in our rulers, which we shouldn't have rulers, but we do.
It erodes trust.
And then you start thinking, what else are they lying about?
What other lies for our own good are they telling us?
Jay says, hi Matt, can you please explain why the coronavirus is different economically than the world wars of the 20th century, I assume that means.
World Wars of the 20th century.
It seems in both cases, economic and domestic life was paused while the nation dealt with a common mission to defeat an enemy.
In both cases, the subsequent decades had significant economic growth and expansion.
This could be attributed to the pent-up consumer demand as well as a flood of labor back into the workforce.
I'm scared like everybody about the bleak economic outlook at the moment, but I'm curious why the same principles don't apply here.
Well, I think for a number of reasons.
First of all, with a war, with any war, the economy doesn't go on pause.
Life doesn't go on pause.
Now, there may be significant resources that are put into fighting the war, which can be a good or bad thing, depending on the war.
If we're talking about the endless, never-ending war in Afghanistan, it's a bad thing.
World War II, good thing, right?
So resources are allocated there.
You lose a lot of workers because they're going overseas to fight.
Many of them die.
So that's the case, yeah.
But that's very different, I would say, from the government telling you to stay in your homes and not do any work.
With a war, everyone's doing work, and you might be doing different work than you were doing before.
Especially if you the work you were doing before was you were working at a factory or something and now you're And now you're overseas fighting the Nazis.
That's very different work.
But that's just it's allocating the resources differently here We're just telling you there's no allocation.
The allocation is stay in your homes.
You know, you're not allowed to leave This is the government saying is it's shutting down the economy Not not directing the economy towards a war effort, but shutting it down completely So this is a very different thing and it's also it is unprecedented now people We'll point out some of the measures that were taken in some areas during, for example, the Spanish flu epidemic 100 years ago.
But that was not anything like the scale that we have now, where you have the entire country shut down.
To my knowledge, that did not happen.
It's not ever happened.
Certainly not in modern history.
And we should also keep in mind that back then, the government wasn't $20 trillion in debt.
And spending even more to try to buy its way out of this upcoming economic depression.
So I would say it's a different... Now, just because it's unprecedented and different than anything that's been done before doesn't make it wrong automatically.
It is wrong to do what they're doing, but that's not what makes it wrong necessarily.
But I just don't think those comparisons hold up.
So thanks for that.
I think we'll leave it there.
Thanks, everybody, for watching.
Try to have a good weekend.
At least around here, the weather's nice, so you can at least go outside.
If your state allows you, for an approved reason, you can exit your home and enjoy nature, at least for small amounts of time.
And so I hope you enjoy that.
We'll talk on Monday.
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.
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.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
