Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media is pushing for a one size fits all approach to the coronavirus, but a few states have refused to issue stay at home orders and they prove why the one size fits all approach is foolish. Also Five Headlines including some of the most desperate and absurd fear mongering we’ve yet seen from the media. And today we cancel Alyssa Milano, who went from championing the Me Too movement to calling for due process for men. Guess what changed her mind?
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 Walsh Show, the media is pushing for a one-size-fits-all approach to the coronavirus epidemic, but a few states in the country have refused so far to issue stay-at-home orders and are doing things a little bit differently, proving why the one-size-fits-all approach doesn't work.
But why is it?
Why is it that so many people, especially in the media and some in government, are so desperate For every single state to adopt the same approach.
I have a theory about that that I'll share.
Also, five headlines, including some of the most desperate and absurd fear-mongering that we have yet seen from the media.
And today we cancel Alyssa Milano, who went from, as you recall, a champion of the Me Too movement, saying believe all women, to calling for due process for men.
Nothing wrong with calling for due process, I think that's the right thing, but what is it exactly that changed her mind all of a sudden?
That's the reason that she gets cancelled, and we'll talk about all that coming up.
Alright, so, starting off.
The media has, for the last several days, been badgering the remaining states in the country that have not issued state home orders, statewide state home orders, although some of those states do have individual cities that have their own state home orders.
The media really, really, really wants every state to get on board and go, you know, full-on lockdown with this.
Reporters have been harassing Trump about it at the White House press conferences saying, why don't you institute a national lockdown and force every state to adopt a stay-at-home order?
And, well, I can tell you one of the reasons why he doesn't do it and shouldn't do it is that it would be wildly unconstitutional.
The president absolutely does not have the authority to tell every single person in the country to stay in their homes.
But the media doesn't care about that, of course.
They've been publishing article after article Trying to shame these states, the few remaining states, for not having state home orders.
So, for example, CBS.com says, 43 states now have state home orders for coronavirus.
There are seven that don't.
NPR, states without coronavirus lockdown orders are under scrutiny.
USA Today, in states without state home orders, Americans celebrate freedom as death toll climbs.
Forbes, here are the nine state governors who have refused to issue state home orders.
MSN, coronavirus in the U.S., how all 50 states are responding and why nine states still refuse to issue state home orders.
New York Times, holdout states resist call for state home orders.
What are they waiting for?
Now if you're wondering which states are the holdouts, the naughty children, the selfish psychopaths on a mission to spread the contagion and destroy mankind, well a reporter from NBC has helpfully listed them so that we can point to them and shame them for being so reckless.
His tweet says, the eight governors who have, so I guess it's down to eight now.
The eight governors who have not issued state home orders.
Arkansas, Asa Hutchinson, Iowa, Kim Reynolds, Nebraska, Pete Ricketts, North Dakota, Doug Burgum, South Dakota, Kristi Noem, South Carolina, Henry McMaster, Utah, Gary Herbert, Wyoming, Mark Gordon.
Okay, so those are the states that don't have the state home orders.
And we're supposed to be very angry at these states.
How dare you?
How dare you?
Wagging our finger at them.
Let's take a look at this because this is interesting.
They haven't gone into a full lockdown.
The media says they should.
Let's look at their individual situations.
And I want to focus especially on three of these states, because the absurdity of the push for a national lockdown and a one-size-fits-all approach to this situation can be seen especially in these three states.
Now, it can be seen in some of the others, too.
Don't get me wrong.
I mean, Arkansas has, for example, 927 cases, only 16 deaths in a population of 3 million.
only 16 deaths in a population of 3 million.
Utah has about 1600 cases, 13 deaths in a population of about 3 million.
So I would say there, there's just no justification, there's no reason for a full statewide lockdown.
There is not yet an emergency situation there.
But then what about South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming?
The media is pushing for lockdowns in South Dakota, North Dakota, and Wyoming.
Are those states actually in the midst of a coronavirus emergency?
Is there any reason for them to go into a lockdown?
Well, let's see.
South Dakota has 288 cases and 4 deaths in a population of 882,000 spread out over 77,000 square miles.
North Dakota has 225 cases.
of 882,000 spread out over 77,000 square miles.
North Dakota has 225 cases.
By the way, these are the numbers that, based on the last report, which was yesterday.
Wyoming has 212 cases, zero deaths, in a population of 577,000.
What else am I missing?
North Dakota, so I gave South Dakota, that's 288 cases, four deaths.
North Dakota, 225 cases, three deaths, population of 760,000 over 70,000 square miles.
North Dakota, that's 288 cases, 4 deaths.
North Dakota, 225 cases, 3 deaths, population of 760,000 over 70,000 square miles.
And then I said Wyoming, 0 deaths, 212 cases, population of 577,000.
Almost 100,000 square miles that population is spread out over.
Thank you.
So what's our grand total?
That would be, between all three states, seven total coronavirus deaths amid 2.2 million people over 244,000 square miles.
Seven deaths.
And the media is saying they should go into a full-on stay-at-home lockdown.
Now let's compare that, just to put this into perspective here, because I think perspective is really being lost.
That's the one thing we might be missing the most right now, is perspective.
So perspective, let's compare this to New York City.
New York City has been, obviously as we know, very hard hit.
And many people, not just in the media, seem to think that every state should react to the virus the same way that New York City is reacting.
Every state should treat the problem the way New York City is treating it.
We should, according to these people, just sort of assume that what's happening in New York can and will happen everywhere else in the country.
Well, New York has 8 million people packed into 300 square miles.
Okay, so that's 2 million people in 244,000 square miles in Wyoming, South Dakota, and North Dakota, as opposed to 8 million people in 300 square miles.
New York packs 27,000 people into each square mile of its city.
There are more people in three square miles of New York than there are in the entire capital city of North Dakota, which is Bismarck.
Which is 31 square miles, by the way.
What's the point here?
The point is that different parts of the country are in very, very different situations.
And insisting that every part of the country meet this complex challenge in the exact same way is total, absolute, unabashed lunacy.
It makes no sense.
There is no reason, no reason at all, why Wyoming, with zero coronavirus deaths, should respond in the same way as New York with 3,000.
That's like saying that every state in the country should adopt the exact same policies and strategies to deal with homelessness.
I mean, you take any problem at all, but it's like saying that every state should deal with homelessness in the exact same way.
Well, you wouldn't say that because doesn't your strategy for homelessness really depend quite a bit on how prevalent the problem is and where it is and how the homeless people are distributed?
It's very specific to your A situation in your state or in your city.
Would it make sense for the state of Montana with 1300 or so homeless people in the entire state to pretend for the sake of battling the problem that it's exactly like New York?
No.
Although, incidentally, Montana is pretending that it's exactly like New York when it comes to the virus.
Montana's been on a full lockdown now for weeks.
The current lockdown, I think, is supposed to supposedly end on April 10th, but they're already talking about extending it by three weeks.
So they're on a full lockdown.
They only have 300 cases and six deaths.
300 cases and 6 deaths.
Yet Montana went into a full lockdown.
Many states are in a similar position, having locked down even though there's no coronavirus
epidemic in their states.
There is not an epidemic in every single state in the country.
Minnesota is under a state home order, yet it has only 29 deaths, with a median age of death of 86.
This raises the question, why are so many people, especially in the media, Desperate for these other states to lock down.
When you just look at the numbers and you look at the situation, it's very obvious that whatever North Dakota, South Dakota, Wyoming, Arkansas, whatever these states are, Utah, whatever these states are doing, it seems to be fine.
It seems to be working pretty well.
I mean, the situation in Wyoming is almost as good as it could possibly be when nobody's died of it.
Yeah, they have 200 cases, but you're gonna have a few, right?
So, it'd be difficult for it to be much better in Wyoming with respect to the coronavirus than it currently is.
So, logically, you would look at it and say, well, whatever they're doing seems to be okay.
There's no evidence that their strategy isn't working.
So, what's the point, though?
Why would you say, well, we need you to lock down, we need you to decimate your economy?
Go ahead and destroy your statewide economy for zero deaths.
And if a state's gonna lock down based on zero deaths from a disease, then why wouldn't it remain locked down forever because of all the other diseases that haven't killed anybody in their state, or only have killed a few people?
Doesn't make sense.
Why does the media insist on it?
Well, I agree with what some others have postulated, that one of the reasons, a big reason, is this.
The media doesn't want a control group.
The last thing they want is to have states that act essentially as control groups in this national experiment that we're all forced to be a part of, or most of us are forced to be a part of.
Because if these other states make it through okay, despite not having lockdown, then it will prove that there was another way of handling this.
That lockdowns are not necessarily necessary for every state.
But if everybody locks down, then it's a win-win for the media.
Because if the virus doesn't end up being as bad as they said, which already we know that it's not as bad as they said, but if that holds true, if that trend continues, then they can just say, well, the lockdown saved us, you see?
Because if every single state is locked down, then the success in every single state, we could say it's because of the lockdowns.
But if it is as bad as they say, then they could say, see, we needed the lockdowns.
So they win either way.
But that's a harder case to make if you've got these outliers, these other states who don't lock down and yet have survived quite easily throughout the ordeal.
So this push and this call for a national lockdown, for these other states to get on board, as they're saying, this has nothing to do with safety.
It has nothing to do with beating the virus or whatever.
This is about people who have been fear-mongering, who don't want to be proven wrong, And the bureaucrats and people in government who are pushing for this, for them, it's about control.
And for the media, it's about narrative.
So for the government, it's about control.
For the media, it's about narrative.
All right, let's move on to your headlines.
And staying now on the subject of the media, here they go again with the coronavirus and battlefield death comparisons, which they love to do.
The USA Today, this is a headline for the USA Today.
It says, 10,000 people in the U.S.
have died because of the coronavirus, more than the number of battle deaths from six U.S.
wars combined.
Okay?
Now remember, we have been told over and over and over again that you must not compare the coronavirus to the flu.
Comparing coronavirus deaths to flu deaths is completely Uh, inappropriate, because these are two things that are totally different, and they're unrelated, and so that analogy doesn't work and it makes no sense.
So if you were to say that, you know, during a normal flu season, like 50,000 people die, and so far 10,000 have died of the coronavirus, that, you're a terrible person if you say that.
Terrible person.
You're trying to, you're trying to minimize the coronavirus, you're trying to get people killed, you're killing everybody's grandparents, you can't do that.
But, you can compare the coronavirus to wars.
Because somehow, the comparison to a war is more relevant than a comparison to another virus.
Okay.
By the way, what wars are they talking about?
Because you think, 6 US wars combined, 10,000 deaths.
What wars?
I mean, we can't be talking about, like, World War II here.
Well, no.
The wars that they're combining to get to this scary figure are the American Revolution, the War of 1812, the Mexican War, Indian War, Spanish-American War, and Desert Storm.
This is what they've stooped to.
They're actually comparing coronavirus deaths to deaths in the War of 1812.
That's what they're doing.
This is how desperate they've become in their quest to find scary ways of framing the numbers.
That they're now digging back in history, and frantically searching through Wikipedia, and fighting the War of 1812.
Let's go with that.
Why not the Barbary?
The First Barbary War.
How about that?
Let's compare.
I think there was like 30 people.
30 Americans died in that.
300 times as many Americans have died from coronavirus as died in the first Barbary War.
Now, it would be kind of hilarious if not for the subject matter.
And, of course, you know, the point here is that you could pull this kind of move with anything to make it seem scarier.
I could say accurately, probably, I don't have the numbers in front of me, but this is probably true, that falling coconuts have killed more people than John Wayne Gacy, Ted Bundy, and the D.C.
Snipers combined.
I could say that.
It's probably statistically true, but what would be the point of saying that?
That's a comparison that makes no sense, and is not helpful, and does not lend any perspective at all to the threat of falling coconuts.
In fact, it puts it out of perspective.
Number two.
And, well, ladies and gentlemen, your dystopian future has officially arrived.
Watch this.
The Anti-COVID-19 Volunteer Toronto Task Force.
Please maintain a social distance of at least six feet.
Again, please maintain social distancing.
Please help stop the spread of this virus.
Reduce the death toll and save lives.
For your own safety and your family's safety, please maintain social distancing.
Thank you for your cooperation.
We are all in this together.
Now, I should note here, and I'm not sure if this makes it creepier or less creepy,
probably more creepy, that the FAA has no idea who was behind that drone.
The New York Police Department says that it wasn't them, so we don't actually know who that was.
Someone sending that dystopian, weird Orwellian drone out to warn the citizens about the coronavirus, nobody knows who did it right now.
Number three, there was a line of cars, take a look at this picture, line of cars literally miles long in South Florida waiting at a food bank.
And here's the, you see there, these are people waiting for food from a food bank called Feeding South Florida.
And Feeding South Florida says that they've seen a 600% increase in the number of people asking for food over the last couple of weeks, 600%.
This is not the only line like this we've seen around the country.
So, just so you know, when you have lines at food banks stretching miles to the horizon, that is not a sign of a coming economic crash.
That's a sign that you are already in an economic crash.
People are talking about the economic crash as if it's a thing that might happen.
No, it is something that is happening right now, and every single marker that you look at, starting with the unemployment numbers, tells you that.
Number four, I almost feel bad playing this for you because it's become a daily thing, and I'm not interested, really, in making fun of a guy who has dementia, but at the same time, this is not about making fun of him.
This is about, this is a guy who wants to be President of the United States.
And is clearly losing his mind.
So here he is, Joe Biden, of course, we're talking about, on MSNBC last night.
We have to do at least several things.
One, we have to depend on what the president's going to do right now.
And first of all, he has to tell, wait till the cases before anything happens.
Look, the whole idea is he's got to get in place things that were shortages of.
Okay, so just the transcript of that.
He said, one, we have to depend on what the president's going to do right now.
And first of all, he has to wait till the case is before anything happens.
Look, the whole idea is he's got to get in place things that were shortages of.
This really is just like we played yesterday.
I don't even know.
I'm not trying to be difficult or flippant.
I don't know what he's trying to say here.
And the thing is, when someone is speaking off the cuff on camera, and you want to be a jerk about it, you could very often find a transcript of a certain segment of what they said, and it looks nonsensical on the page.
Because maybe they were fumbling over the words, or they were kind of waiting for the next thought to come to them.
So you could do that to anybody.
You could certainly do it to me.
But in this case, this is not fumbling over the words.
This is pure nonsense.
The whole idea is he's got to get in place things that were shortages of.
See, that's not the kind of sentence you say when you're tripping and stumbling and kind of maybe throwing for a loop in the answer you're giving.
This is something you say when there's something wrong, when there's a disconnect in your brain, which is what's happening with Joe Biden.
Number five, finally, and back to the theme of media scaremongering.
Here's the headline from the Daily Mail.
Okay, very scary headline.
It says, new evidence amid fears coronavirus can hide in human cells and reactivate.
The virus can reactivate after you've recovered.
That's the headline.
And there's evidence of that.
They're saying, wow, that sounds very scary.
Then you start thinking, wait a second, all these people that recovered, could they still die maybe?
It just sounds like scary stuff.
And the way the game is played, what these outlets would prefer for you to do, what Daily Mail wants you to do, is read the headline, and maybe just click on it for a second, and read the first sentence, so that they get the click, but then click right out.
They don't want you to actually read the entire article.
Because when you do, here's what you find, and I'll read for you from this Daily Mail article.
Remember what the headline was.
Uh, new evidence amid fears coronavirus can hide in human cells and reactivate.
Okay, here's what the actual article says.
51 patients who recovered from coronavirus in South Korea have tested positive again, raising fears the virus can be reactivated.
Still sounds pretty scary, right?
The patients from the country's worst-hit city were put in quarantine after being diagnosed with the virus, then tested positive again days after being released.
Korea Center for Disease Control Prevention said the virus was likely reactivated rather than patients being reinfected.
Scientists at the government-run health body believe the virus may lay dormant at undetectable levels in the human cells.
They say that for unknown reasons, the viral particles can be reactivated, but it is unclear if patients become infectious again.
Okay, so that's, so we've read that far, and this is the point where you're supposed to drop off, you've read enough, you've kind of got, you've got, you've got the gist of it, now you can share it, and you can spread the fear like wildfire, help to spread it all over the internet.
If you keep going though, one more sentence, here's what you'll read.
Experts say there is no evidence to prove that the virus acts in this way, and studies in monkeys have actually shown the opposite.
And they say in cases where patients produce a positive result twice, it is normally because of a test giving the wrong result, which happens one in five times.
So that's... So, you go through the first, you know, several sentences, and the headline, and then you get to the bottom of the article that negates everything you just read.
Basically that sentence I just read, really what the sentence says is forget everything you just read before.
None of this is probably true.
The headline was new evidence and in the article it says there is no evidence.
So there's new evidence and the new evidence is there's no evidence.
So what the real story is that there are some people in South Korea who tested positive and then tested negative and tested positive again.
And there are some unnamed people in government in South Korea who are worried, who have fears, that this means that the virus can reactivate.
But in terms of the actual science and the studies and the research, there's no evidence of that whatsoever.
And there's a much simpler explanation, which is just that the negative test that they took was wrong.
And that happens 20% of the time, so it would make sense that you're going to have, they say, 51 people.
Well, that makes sense.
The fact that there are fears among some unknown people of something happening, that's not a news story.
I have all kinds of fears.
You want to do a news story about fears that I have?
I have all kinds of irrational fears.
When I go on airplanes, I mean I've got tons of fears on airplanes and now I can add a few because of the coronavirus thing.
One of my irrational fears on an airplane, you know what I worry about sometimes?
Is that the plane will go too high and will like drift into outer space.
Which is completely impossible and only a moron could worry about that.
It's physically impossible that could happen, right?
But it's a fear that I, it's just a totally irrational fear.
So why not do a news article headline, New Fears That Airplanes Fly Too High And Hit The Moon.
New fears!
Um...
I've actually had a lot... I've had dreams of that.
I had this weird recurring dream of things that are like, elevators too.
This weird recurring dream, my whole life, where I'm in an elevator.
You would think a normal recurring nightmare is where you're in an elevator that crashes, it hits the ground.
My fear is, in my dreams, the elevator goes too high and kind of shoots out the top of the building.
I don't know what that says about me psychologically.
Nothing good, probably.
Alright, let's move on to your daily cancellation.
Before we do, I want to remind you again about our all-access live shows that, if you haven't checked it out yet, head over to dailywire.com at 8 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Pacific.
And this, of course, as we've been telling you about, it's just a sort of more relaxed and relaxed kind of conversational vibe as opposed to our normal programming, so it's not as much of a formal sort of show.
And this is all about breaking up the isolation of being in quarantine and being shut down.
And we've moved up, that's why we moved up the timeline and we started doing the...
The All Access shows now rather than we were supposed to be waiting and doing it a few months from now.
Originally for just the All Access members, but it's open now for at least for now to Daily Wire members, all Daily Wire members.
So take advantage of that and if you're around today at 8 p.m.
Eastern, 5 p.m.
Pacific, make sure to tune in for that.
Okay, today we are canceling Alyssa Milano.
Alyssa Milano is the Me Too champion, the champion for abused women.
This is a person who has valiantly stood up to hold so many alleged sexual assaulters accountable, even when there is no evidence against the alleged sexual assaulters, like with Kavanaugh.
But what Elissa Milano has said many times, effectively, is the evidence doesn't matter.
And if a man's accused, let's just assume he's guilty and tear him down.
Well, Milano, funny enough, endorsed Joe Biden.
And then Joe Biden was accused of sexually assaulting a woman in 1993.
And does that mean that she'll now disavow Biden and link arms again with the Me Too movement and insist that he drop out and be arrested?
Well, no.
Not quite.
Here she is on the show Andy Cohen Live explaining why she is not disavowing Joe Biden and why she has gone through a rather drastic change of perspective.
Listen to this.
I believe that even though we should believe women, and that is an important thing, and what that statement really means is like, you know, for so long the go-to has been not to believe them.
So really we have to sort of societally change that mindset to believing women, but that does not mean at the expense of not Well, okay, hold on a second.
I don't think we've heard Alyssa Milano say the phrase due process.
Nobody in the Me Too movement has uttered the phrase due process at any point.
I was beginning to think they'd never heard it.
I was beginning to think that they had no idea what it meant.
Like, if you said the phrase due process to them, they would think it has something to do with the rain droplets that you see on the grass in the morning in the summer, you know, the dew.
The dew process is how the dew gets on the grass, or something.
But now she's a legal scholar, constitutional scholar, talking about due process.
Well, that's really funny because she actually went to DC during the Kavanaugh hearings and she attended the hearings.
And do you think she attended the hearings to support due process?
Do you think she was carrying a sign that said something like, give this man due process?
No, I'm afraid not.
In fact, take a look.
At this tweet, it says, I'm in DC because I don't believe any man's misogyny should take precedent over a survivor's humanity.
We tried to see Murkowski, Collins, and Hyde-Smith today and share our stories of survival.
They refused to see us.
And then she's holding a sign that says, I believe survivors.
So she went from, I believe survivors, to give men their due process.
And all it took to make that switch was for her favorite politician to be accused.
That's all it took.
And let's be clear about something, it's not as though there's really solid evidence, or there was really solid evidence against Kavanaugh, whereas there isn't any against Joe Biden.
Even if that was the case, that shouldn't matter, because Elissa Milano and all the MeToo people, their point was never about evidence.
Whether there's evidence or no evidence, completely irrelevant.
The point is, believe women.
Evidence or not.
But as it happens, as far as evidence goes, there was none at all against Kavanaugh.
None.
Just Christine Ford's word.
And against Biden, there's a little bit of evidence.
Arguably.
There are two people who say they were told by Tara Reade, the accuser, at the time when the incident happened.
Back in 1993.
I think it was her brother and a friend, I'm pretty sure.
And they have confirmed that they were told in 1993 by her that she was assaulted.
So, that's circumstantial evidence at least.
It's more than Christine Ford had.
So, this is not about evidence at all.
Let's hear a little bit more from Milano explaining her thinking here.
It's got to be fair in both directions.
Okay.
So, you know, I've been very vocal about Biden and my support for him.
I've known him for a long time and I did do my due diligence because part of it was that, and the article that sort of stood out to me was that Time's Up decided not to take the case.
That was important to you.
That meant, well, maybe there's more to this story here.
Right.
I did my work and I spoke to Time's Up and I just don't feel comfortable throwing away a decent man that I've known for 15 years in this time of complete chaos without there being a thorough investigation.
I'm sure that mainstream media would be jumping all over this.
Everything she's saying right now is totally reasonable.
We weren't in a pandemic.
Or if there was more credible, if there was evidence that was-
If they found more evidence.
Everything she's saying right now is totally reasonable.
If she was in a normal circumstance, if it wasn't for the fact that she was aligned with
the Me Too movement and had spent the last two or three years of her life trying to tear
men down based on no evidence and coming out so strongly against due process over the last
few- If it wasn't for that, I would say far from being canceled for this, she should be
applauded.
Because everything she's saying, in a vacuum, makes sense.
Yeah, you should have due process, and yeah, if you know somebody, and you've known them for a long time, And you know their character.
That doesn't mean that they're not capable of doing something horrible, so that in itself is not decisive.
But, yeah, if you know somebody and you're a friend with them, friends of theirs, and they're accused and there's little to no evidence, I don't think you should just immediately drop them like a hot potato and assume that everything you've learned about them as a friend is irrelevant or not true.
So that is all fine in a vacuum.
But we're not in a vacuum.
And the problem is that Elissa Milano came to this realization only because of her favorite politician getting accused.
And I can't even really call it a realization because it's not as though she's saying, All the stuff with Kavanaugh, I think we were wrong about that.
In fact, I think the whole Me Too movement has long since gone off the rails.
So this is not a sort of come to Jesus moment where she's apologizing.
No, nothing like that at all.
So this realization, I'm guessing, is limited only to Joe Biden.
And the next time a conservative or Republican or someone that she doesn't like is accused, she's gonna jump right back on the Me Too bandwagon again.
So, that's why Alyssa Milano was canceled.
Let's go to emails.
You can email the show by becoming a Daily Wire member.
You can access the mailbag that way.
This is from Andrew, says, hi Matt, I thought you'd find how North Dakota is running pretty interesting.
We just talked about that.
I live in a relatively rural area.
The nearest Walmart is an hour away.
And most people are still able to work.
Schools, bars, and restaurants are still shut down besides takeout, but almost everything else is still open.
Most, if not all, businesses have changed how they operate.
For example, banks are drive-thru only for 99% of the time and face-to-face by appointment and necessity only.
I'm a farmer, and our parts stores have changed to calling in and ordering what you need and having an employee bring it out to you.
Other stores have buffers set up so you can only go to the counter and the employees basically do the shopping for you.
It's definitely not perfect, but it's allowed most businesses to remain in operation.
Sorry for the rambling, but I thought I'd let you know how we're doing things a bit differently.
Granted, I know we have a much lower population density than most places.
P.S.
Thanks for being one of the few voices standing up to government overreach in our lives and our churches.
We haven't been forced to shut down churches here yet, even though almost all have volunteered to do so.
If we are ordered to, there will 100% be underground church services.
Do you think once ordered to keep churches closed, we have the obligation to have services?
I think it's a conversation worth having.
To answer your last question, no, I don't think it's an obligation.
I think, again, not all situations are the same, not all areas in the country are the same.
There certainly are areas of the country where you probably shouldn't be having church services, even though, even in those situations, I don't support the government shutting down churches by force and arresting people, because I do think the First Amendment should remain active.
But I think it's something people should choose not to do, and in most cases, that was the choice that had already been made.
As to everything else, yeah, this is a perfect example, but this is what I'm talking about.
This is what the media doesn't want.
Where you've got a state like North Dakota handling the outbreak, even though there's not much of an outbreak in their state, as far as they know, in terms of reported cases, but handling it in a more targeted, I think reasonable way, where you're keeping the economy going, but you're taking precautions.
And this is the worst case scenario for scaremongers in the media, because if this works for North Dakota, then people are going to start to say, well, maybe other states could have done the same thing.
Maybe we didn't need to tear our entire economy to pieces.
From Marcus says, it's not that one person surfing can spread coronavirus, it's that if they allow one, they have to allow all.
Some of the examples you are giving, examples I gave yesterday of government overreach he's referring to.
Some of the examples you are giving are truly out of control by the government and a power grab, but the majority are definitely not essential.
People don't need to be having gatherings on the beach right now, and police telling people to go back home isn't a police state.
Putting people in jail for leaving NYC is definitely insane, however.
Just saying, be careful with the examples you're giving because you sound foolish with many of them.
One final thing.
Older people don't need to be having church gatherings right now.
There are other ways to worship.
I practice those other ways daily.
Sitting in a church while simultaneously putting older folks at risk just is simply not worth it.
Arresting the pastor and threatening to shut the church down was overstepping, I agree, but hardly erasing the First Amendment.
Surely you must admit that there are safer ways to worship right now.
Keep up the good fight.
I understand what you're trying to do by reining in government overreach, but just pick better examples of said overreach."
Well, so I think there's a couple problems here, Marcus.
First of all, see, you're doing what a lot of people are doing with this church issue that really annoys me, frankly, and that's you're trying to sit on the fence.
Where you're saying, yeah, it's overreach, I'm not comfortable with it, but no, of course it's not an infringement on the First Amendment.
Well, then why is it overreach?
So you're saying it's possible for the government to overreach in shutting down churches forcibly and arresting pastors, but it's not a violation of the First Amendment?
I would say it's only an overreach if it is a violation of the First Amendment.
If it's not a violation of the First Amendment, then it's not an overreach.
These are synonymous terms.
I don't know what you mean by that exactly.
To me it sounds like having your cake and eat it too kind of thing.
Or you want to play both sides of it.
And that has been really irritating for me because I've gotten so many emails from people, and forget about the emails, just even conservatives in media, many of them, who I think need to be standing up and speaking out against this instead are trying to play the both sides of the fence thing like you're doing here.
Saying, I don't really like it, it's not good, but it's not a violation of the First Amendment.
No, it's kind of one or the other, isn't it?
And then you say people don't need to be having gatherings on the beach and so on.
It's not about what people need to do.
And we weren't really talking about gatherings.
We were talking about cases where people were going individually or as a family unit to sit on the beach and have a picnic.
Or, you know, more than six feet away from any other people.
Or even sit in their cars.
I mean, you've got people being arrested for sitting in their cars.
And eating or something at the beach or somewhere else.
And you could say you don't need to do that, but that's not how the government is supposed to operate.
It's not supposed to be, you have a right to do the things you need to do.
And anything you don't need to do, you don't have the right to do.
I would say that when that becomes The setup, when that becomes the way the government operates, then yes, we are living in a police state.
When the government says, here are the things that you need to do, and you're allowed to do those things, anything else that's in the don't need category, and by the way, who decides what's a need and what isn't?
We do, the government, we'll tell you.
We will tell you what your essential activities are, and if you do anything that is not essential, we can arrest you.
If that's not a police state, then I really don't know what a police state would look like.
If it doesn't look like this, what would it look like?
Radical idea here, but maybe to some extent you let free people
make decisions for themselves.
You know, you're talking about old people going to church and you don't want them to be exposed.
Well, but nobody... If a church does open somewhere, no one's forcing any elderly person at gunpoint to go to the church.
I would agree with you that it's probably not a good idea for an elderly person to be going to a church gathering right now.
But no one's forcing them to go.
So, why can't they just choose to stay home?
That was already happening.
This is the other part that people in your camp are not grasping.
It was already happening that most churches in the country had chosen to take these precautions on their own.
The government didn't have any pressing need to come in, even if it could be justified based on need.
There really wasn't a need because churches were already choosing to do it.
All right, but thanks for the email.
We'll leave it there, everybody.
Thanks for watching and listening.
Have a great day.
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.
