Today on the Matt Walsh Show, religious liberty has been canceled for the foreseeable future. Or, as one police officer explained, your rights are “suspended.” But what makes us think the government will politely restore our rights once the pandemic is over? And is it a good idea to give it the power to suspend our rights in the first place? Also Five Headlines including the New York Times exonerating Joe Biden of sexual assault.
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, religious liberty has been cancelled for the foreseeable future, in case you hadn't noticed.
Or as one police officer explained as he was breaking up a drive-in worship service for Easter, your rights have been suspended.
But what makes us think the government will politely restore our rights after having suspended them for this pandemic?
And is it a good idea, in general, to give the state the power to suspend our rights in the first place?
So we'll talk about that.
Also, five headlines, including the New York Times basically attempting to exonerate Joe Biden of sexual assault, and the attempt was disastrous and ineffective for a number of reasons.
We'll talk about all of that coming up.
But first, just to begin with, I want to say Happy Easter, of course, and I hope you had a blessed Easter.
I know my kids did.
Mainly because of the candy.
Now, of course, we tell them they know the real meaning of Easter, and they appreciate that, but when it comes down to it, at their age, the main thing is going to be the candy, and that was certainly the case for them.
My youngest son in particular, speaking of candy, is lucky to still be alive, I think,
because we put him down for a nap yesterday afternoon, Easter afternoon, and he snuck out of his room, apparently,
like a ninja, he was able to sneak out.
I was out in the main area, man, I should have seen him, I didn't see him.
That's what kind of an attentive parent I am.
He snuck out of his room and grabbed his Easter basket and smuggled it back into his room with him,
and then was gorging on candy in his crib for about 45 minutes when I thought he was napping.
And the only reason I found this out is because 45 minutes later,
he tried to sneak out of his room again to get a glass of water because he was understandably
parched from all the candy.
And that was really kind of pushing it.
So he pushed his luck.
I saw him then.
So as a father, you know, you might get away with it the first time if you're a kid.
If you're my kid.
But the second time I'll catch you.
And if not the second time, the third time I'll definitely catch you.
Anyway, I saw him coming out and he had chocolate all over his face.
And he was currently in the process of chewing another piece of candy.
He had a piece of candy in his mouth that he was eating while I was talking to him.
And I said, what's going on buddy?
Eating candy?
And he said, no.
And I said, what's all that stuff all over your face?
I don't know.
And I said, I'm going to go check your room to see if there's candy in your room.
And then he bolted for the door to try to lock me out, to get there before me, and I had to run and stop him.
And I went in, and sure enough, there's candy all over his crib.
He's got a whole pile of it.
There's empty Easter egg shells all over the floor.
He'd eaten probably about a pound of candy.
Although I should say, in fairness, this is all alleged because he did explain that he doesn't know how the candy got in his crib.
And then at another point when I asked him again, he said it got there by accident.
He said it was on accident.
I guess he tripped and fell and candy went all over the crib and some went into his mouth.
You know, it was a total accident.
And then a third time when I asked him later, he got into this elaborate story about how Darth Vader had put the candy in his crib.
So I, you know, who really knows what happened?
I've got my theories, he's got his, who knows?
But either way, it was a good Easter for him.
Because it was Easter yesterday, and in times past, people would go to church on Easter.
But it is illegal now to go to church in most states in the Union.
In most states in the United States right now, it is illegal to go to church, even on Easter.
And many states stepped up their enforcement of these laws that they have passed, or these, not even really laws, just policies, directives from the governor, saying you can't go to church.
Now, I...
About two weeks ago, I talked about this issue on this show and I wrote a Daily Wire column about it.
And I said that, in my opinion, the forcible closure of churches and the arrest or fining of pastors who hold services and people who attend those services is a clear and direct assault on the First Amendment.
And in fact, if that is not a clear and direct assault on the First Amendment, I don't know what is.
If that doesn't qualify, then I don't know what possibly ever could.
That to me seems like the clearest example you could ever dream of, of the government infringing on the First Amendment.
Land of the free, also.
You know, we say land of the free, home of the brave.
And eventually, when these lockdowns are lifted, and we have sporting events again, which maybe will happen, let's hope, again in the future.
There's going to be football games, and they're going to sing the national anthem, and people are going to stand up and sing Land of the Free, Home of the Brave, and we're going to have to figure out how to do it with a straight face.
And I'm not sure how we do that at this point.
Because what does it even mean anymore?
How can you look around at this country right now and say we are Land of the Free and Home of the Brave?
Where are we seeing that exactly?
It has to mean something.
And if our commitment to freedom can be suspended, or if we are only committed to freedom up until the point when we're afraid of something, then our commitment to freedom is not really any different.
It's about on par with the rest of the world.
There's nothing special about us in that regard.
So let's just admit that, at least.
If we are basically free most of the time until the government has a compelling interest in its opinion to suspend those freedoms, if that's what free for us means, then we are no different from dozens of other countries across the world.
We're no freer, we're no different, we're no better when it comes to that.
Now, we may be better than still, you know, countries like North Korea.
But most countries on the globe right now, if you go there, you're basically free most of the time unless people are really afraid of something or unless the government says it has a special interest in taking those freedoms away.
So if that's what it is right now in America, then we're no different from those other countries.
Now at the time when I made that argument, a shocking number, well at least for me as a hopelessly optimistic and naive sort of person, as you know, it was a shocking number of self-described Christian conservatives who stood up to valiantly defend the state's right to close every church at gunpoint.
They defended it on the basis that people who go to church might get sick, and we can't have that.
And also that you don't really need to go to church.
It's not a need, right?
It's not essential.
So they're agreeing with all these state governments who have figured out that they can easily get around the First Amendment.
All they have to do is just declare that churches are non-essential.
It was that easy.
Apparently, getting rid of the First Amendment was as easy as a governor standing up and saying, churches are non-essential.
That's all they had to do.
And First Amendment doesn't exist anymore, effectively.
And that's what they do.
Now, of course, abortion clinics are still essential, liquor stores are still essential, but churches are not.
And they're able to close them down.
And what I discovered is that many conservatives agreed.
Yeah, that churches are not essential.
Close them up, it's fine.
And then they turned around and said that actually people like myself and others who have opposed this, that we're the problem.
Okay, we're the irresponsible ones.
We're the real danger.
Well, I wonder what the people in that group, the Christian Conservatives, defending the government as it shuts down churches and arrests people for going to church.
What will they have to say about what happened yesterday across the country?
So let me just give you two examples.
Two examples that I'm hoping will even wake up the people in this group.
But before I do that, a quick word from policy genius.
You know, there are things we look back on In our own lives, and we think, how did I get it so wrong?
How was I so wrong about this?
And in fact, to be honest, my copyright here tells me to talk about things that I have gotten really, really wrong in my life.
And the problem is, I'm supposed to keep this to 60 seconds, and it wants me to talk about the things I've gotten wrong.
The list is far too long.
And really, this is a pretty emotionally penetrating thing to try to put into an advertisement.
Because I consider, I've gotten many things wrong in my life.
Many more things wrong than right.
And we're always going to get things wrong.
That's what it is.
That's just life.
But there are also things we can get right on the first try, like shopping for life insurance.
That's where PolicyGenius comes in.
PolicyGenius makes finding the right life insurance a breeze.
In minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers to find the best price.
You can save $1,500 or more a year by using PolicyGenius to compare a life insurance policy.
That's a right.
That's a right call.
There's no way that's the wrong call.
Once you apply, the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork, all the red tape, for free.
And PolicyGenius doesn't just make life insurance easy, they also make it easy to find home insurance and auto insurance, disability insurance, whatever it is you're looking for.
So even if you look back on your past failed predictions in distress, you'll never be distressed about life insurance with PolicyGenius.
In just a few minutes, you can find your best price and apply at PolicyGenius.com.
We all get things wrong from time to time, or if you're me, all the time.
At least we can get life insurance right with Policy Genius.
Okay, so, a few things that happened yesterday.
First, there's this in Mississippi.
A pastor by the name of Eric Simmons tried to hold a drive-in service.
So that means that everybody was in their cars, windows rolled up, attending church.
No plausible chance of anything being spread, really.
You're in your own car.
Very safe.
You had a bunch of cops rolled up and dispersed the crowd anyway.
Threatened fines and everything.
Shut it down.
Shut down this drive-in church service for Easter.
And I want you to listen to what one of the police officers says when explaining why this is happening and why they have the right to shut down this church service.
Listen.
Look at this, y'all.
They heard through the grapevine we're having service at 6.30.
And there's more police cars at a church service.
Yes, this is King James Bible Baptist Church where Pastor Hamilton, where I'm the pastor of the church at.
I'm a good citizen.
I ain't breaking no law.
I ain't selling no drugs.
I'm just preaching the word of God.
And look at all these police cars here.
I mean, our service don't start until 630.
This is America, private property of a church.
Yeah.
No, the government.
Our right don't come from authority.
It comes from the Bible.
So the authority does not have the right over the Constitution.
We talk about the Constitution a lot.
The First, Second Amendment, the U.S.
Constitution that was given to us by our forefathers.
Tate Reed can't take it away.
Eric Simmons can't take it away, nor the police officers.
It can't.
No, it can't.
Your rights are suspended.
That's what he said.
So just to review here, what we're dealing with, a bunch of cops shutting down a drive-in church service and informing the congregants that their First Amendment rights have been suspended.
Suspended by order of the governor, if you heard, that's what he actually said, which makes it even creepier.
By order of the governor, your First Amendment rights have been suspended.
Now this is really interesting because When I've claimed in the past that these shutdown orders amount to a suspension of the First Amendment, I've been told that, no, no, no, that's not what's happening.
What are you, any crazy?
You still have your First Amendment rights.
They're not suspended.
Well, here's a police officer who is shutting down a church service saying your rights have been suspended.
Is that enough?
Is that enough evidence?
I would think that the guys in guns arresting people for going to church is evidence enough that your First Amendment rights have been suspended.
But maybe when they tell us that your First Amendment rights have been suspended, we can all now admit that our First Amendment rights have been suspended.
And now the only question is, are we okay with that?
And if you are, then here's my question.
In what sense are you a proponent of religious liberty?
I mean, If you want to argue that the state can do this and that it's fine, then go ahead and argue that.
But please don't turn around in the future and say, I believe in religious liberty.
Religious liberty!
Tell me, give me a definition of religious liberty that allows for the possibility of cops threatening to arrest or fine people simply for going to church and telling them their rights are suspended.
Please give me a definition of religious liberty and free speech that incorporates that.
And then tell me, in what sense is that liberty or freedom?
Now, it gets worse over in Kentucky, and this is all happening in the South, in the Bible Belt, which makes it so much worse.
But in Kentucky, the governor decided that anyone who goes to church on Easter will have their license plate taken down, and will be put in a system, and then will be placed on a mandatory 14-day house arrest for going to church.
Now, they call it a quarantine, but that is not the right term, and I'll explain why in a second.
But first, let's take a look at some of the reporting from Sarah Ladd, who's a local reporter there in Kentucky, on the scene at a church that was holding services on Easter, and cops were there to take down the plates, put it in the file, and place them all under house arrest.
So here's a little footage of some of the cops putting out these notices.
And then here's a photo of one of the notices.
My eyes aren't great, so it's hard for me to read this.
But you can see it says, this vehicle's presence, and these are notices that were put on all the cars there.
This vehicle's presence at this location indicates that its occupants are present at a mass gathering, prohibited by orders of the Governor and the Cabinet for Health and Family Services.
As a result, this vehicle's occupants and anyone they come into contact with are at risk of contracting COVID-19, a respiratory illness that can be severe and lead to death, particularly for older adults and those with underlying health, heart, lung, kidney, and immunity issues.
Where people congregate unnecessarily or fail to follow adequate social distancing practices, they are spreading COVID-19, creating scenes of an emergency.
And then later, it's kind of down at the bottom, it's obscured by the wiper, but it says, associate, so it says this is a self-quarantine document, and so now they have to go into self-quarantine for 14 days.
And if they fail to follow this, then there will be further enforcement measures.
All right.
Now, of course, by this logic, If their simple presence at a, quote, mass gathering means that now they're at risk of contracting COVID-19 and have to be put on quarantine, then that would mean that every single person who goes to Walmart or Target or to any of the other, quote-unquote, essential places also has possibly contracted it and should be under a 14-day quarantine.
Right?
Now, you can tell me all you want, well, those are essential.
Well, does the fact that it's been arbitrarily decreed essential by the government mean that you're somehow at less of a risk?
Is the virus itself going to take note of that and say, oh, well, the governor called that essential, so we're going to lay off here?
No!
If you're saying that simply being around a lot of people Puts you so much at risk that you have to be put on a 14-day quarantine, then that should apply to every single person who's been in a mass gathering, essential or not.
And if it doesn't apply to both, then what you're really telling me that this is not actually about safety.
It's about something else.
Now, but I think we need to clarify here.
This is not a quarantine.
This is a house arrest.
To be clear, he is ordering men with guns to take down the plates of people who go to church on Easter and place them on house arrest for 14 days for the crime of being at church, which will simply be a stricter version of the house arrest that we're all currently under, or at least if you're in every state except for the seven sane ones.
Now, I know we've been using the word quarantine.
I've been using it, just for the sake of simplicity, just calling it a quarantine.
That's actually a mistake.
We shouldn't be calling it that.
I wish that I had not been calling it that all along.
This is not a quarantine, and the distinction is actually very important.
Here is Health and Human Services, the HHS website, providing an official government-endorsed definition of what a quarantine is.
This is what HHS says.
And anywhere you look for a definition, you're going to find basically something similar to this.
It says, quarantine separates and restricts the movement of people who were exposed to a contagious disease to see if they become sick.
These people may have been exposed to a disease and do not know it, or they may have the disease but do not show any symptoms.
And then isolation separates sick people with a contagious disease from people who are not sick.
So, quarantine is for people who are known to have been Or who we have specific and very good reason to think may have been exposed to a contagion.
Right?
That's what a quarantine is.
But the government doesn't know that anyone in that church has the disease.
And thus has no specific reason to think that anyone in the church has been exposed to the disease.
So this is not a quarantine.
Kentucky, as of this morning, has fewer than 2,000 cases and fewer than 100 deaths in a population of 4.4 million.
And spread out over a relatively large state with not a very high population density.
There is no specific reason to assume that people in a church automatically have been exposed to a virus, given the fact that there are only 2,000 confirmed cases, or fewer than 2,000.
Now, you might say that the virus could have been much wider spread than we're aware, so that there are exponentially more than 2,000 who actually have the virus, or had the virus at some point.
That might be, okay?
But the problem is, for the government anyway, the problem is that the only way to make the case that anyone who attends any mass gathering or goes to a church can automatically be reasonably suspected of being exposed to the virus, the only way to make that case is to say that probably, you know, it's not just 2,000 cases, but there are hundreds of thousands of cases or millions of cases.
There would have to be so many cases that you have a high probability of being exposed to it if you're simply around a bunch of other people.
But if that's the case, then that would mean that the death rate is much, much, much, much lower than what they're telling us.
That makes the death rate exponentially lower than what they're currently saying.
And if that's the case, then that means that there's no reason for the quarantine in the first place.
That would mean that the disease is not actually much deadlier than the flu, or even, you know, maybe as deadly as the flu, in which case there's no reason to respond to it this way.
Now, I don't know if that's true or not, but here's my point.
Either way, you know, either the disease is much more widely spread than the numbers show, or it's not.
But either way, you can't call this a quarantine.
It's house arrest.
You see, in either case, the logic doesn't work.
So we are all under a version of house arrest.
As I said, this is an important distinction.
Because those who defend the shutdowns have argued that state governments have a lot of latitude when it comes to putting people under quarantine, people under isolation.
And that's true, they do.
But that's not what this is.
In this case, they are shutting millions of businesses down, closing churches, suspending the right to religious liberty, suspending the right to assembly, suspending our Fourth Amendment rights, basically suspending the entire Bill of Rights, locking people in their homes, etc.
And doing this to healthy people who we have no reason to think have been exposed to anything.
And in many cases, states, the states where this is being done, there is no coronavirus emergency and never has been.
In many of these states, hospitals are not only not overflowing, but in fact are so empty that healthcare workers are being laid off.
So, what is happening?
Is that the government is seizing near total control based on projections.
And that makes it very different from other, that people would argue, you know, similar things have been done, like with the Spanish flu a hundred years ago.
We're told that, well, there were some places that went into lockdown.
Yeah, but that was not nearly as widespread.
And in those cases, that was, you know, places where there was an actual present emergency with this virus.
That's not what's happening here, in most states.
In most states, they are not simply isolating the sick and quarantining the exposed, which I absolutely think is the right thing to do.
Now, that I'm totally in favor of.
But they're not doing that.
They are, based on projections, shutting society down, by force, preemptively, because of something bad that might happen, possibly, in the future.
This raises a whole bunch of questions.
The first one being, what exactly are the limitations on the government's newfound right to preemptively shut down society and lock healthy people in their homes indefinitely based on the predictions of the scientists on its own payroll?
Because even if you support what the government is doing, you must at least acknowledge that the potential for abuse, which is being set by this, is absolutely enormous.
You must at least admit that.
It's not hard to imagine situations where the government would erroneously declare, you know, hey, most of you currently aren't in any serious danger, but we have projected that because of XYZ threat, you might be in the future at some indeterminate point, and so we are gonna go ahead and curtail your civil liberties now, just in case.
And then proceed to drastically, you know, do just that.
Now, it's not hard to imagine scenarios where they would do that on a faulty basis.
Even if you don't think this is a faulty basis, even if you think that the predictions and the projections are good in this case, you must admit that giving the government the power to do this based on projections, whether good or bad, does mean that we are now susceptible to this kind of abuse of power in the future.
And the thing is, isn't that reason enough to oppose it?
Whatever you think of the coronavirus and its relative threat to society, shouldn't we as Americans be skeptical of authority, you know, jealous of our liberties, and therefore be opposed to the government having this kind of power under any circumstance?
I mean, it's something to think about, at least.
And most of the people that are still supporting the shutdowns, from what I've seen, they're just not grappling with this in anything close to a sufficient manner.
They're putting blind faith in government, and I think we've learned throughout history that you simply cannot do that.
Okay, let's go to headlines.
But before we do, quarantine, you know, might not be any fun.
Well, not quarantine.
I just said it's not quarantine.
House arrest may not be any fun.
But you know what is fun?
The Daily Wire deal I'm about to share with you.
When you become a Daily Wire Insider Plus or All Access member, then you'll get not one, but two of the highly coveted Leftist Tears Tumblr.
You get two of them.
Rumor has it that this tumbler completely eliminates the threat of immediate thirst.
That's how amazing it is, at least.
We can't make any other promises, but at least if you put... That's the one thing I can promise.
If you put a beverage in it, and you drink it, you will be less thirsty after drinking it than you were before.
Unless it's like soda or something, which actually dehydrates you more.
So even that promise we can't totally fulfill.
But forget about that.
Daily Wire members get many amazing benefits, including of course,
the leftist-tier Tumblr, but you get a lot more than that.
You also get an ad-free website experience, access to our live broadcast and
show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro show.
Daily Wire members get to ask us questions during backstage, and
our new all-access live shows that allow you to participate in these kind of
casual Q&As that are a lot of fun.
Again, that's two, two, count them, leftists, tiers, tumblers, not just one, in case you didn't know what two means, when you become a Daily Wire member, Insider Plus, or all-access member.
All right, so number one, headlines.
This really should go into my daily cancellation, but I have an even more urgent matter I have to address there, so we're gonna put it here instead.
The New York Times published this past weekend, perhaps, well, it may just be one of the most shameless pieces of faux reporting we have yet seen from them, and that is saying quite a lot.
The Times did a, quote, deep-dive investigation into the allegations by Tara Reid against Joe Biden.
She says that the then-senator in 1993 sexually assaulted her.
The upshot is that the Times, as you can imagine, found no reason to believe the allegations and all but exonerated Joe Biden, or attempted to at any rate.
Now remember, the New York Times, when it came to Brett Kavanaugh, found no allegation that it would not believe.
But in this case, it says, with these allegations, there's very little credibility here.
The Times report includes a really amazing paragraph.
Now, this is actually from a tweet thread that it posted along with the article, but the claim is repeated in the article itself, and though it has been since deleted from the article and from Twitter, but it said, no other allegation of sexual assault surfaced in the course of our reporting, nor did any former Biden staffer corroborate Reid's allegation.
Listen to this, we found no pattern of sexual misconduct by Biden beyond hugs, kisses, and touching that women previously said made them uncomfortable.
In other words, we found no pattern of sexual misconduct except for the pattern of sexual misconduct.
Except for the pattern of sexual misconduct, there's no pattern of sexual misconduct, which makes a lot of sense, right?
That's like if a lawyer of a serial killer, for a serial killer in court, Were to say, your honor, my client resents the claim that he's a serial killer.
He has no pattern of murdering anybody except for the 46 people buried in his backyard.
Except for them, there's no pattern here.
This is erroneous.
But of course, the Times is not alone here.
The media and the left in general seems to have decided that the creepy old man who regularly gropes women in public could not possibly be guilty of sexual assault.
And these are the same people who decided that Brett Kavanaugh was definitely the ringleader of a roving band of gang rapists because one person said that he was.
Now, I'm not saying that Biden is guilty.
I think there are plenty of good reasons to doubt the allegations.
And I think just in general, my first instinct, as I think it should be for anybody, is skepticism.
When you have allegations without much evidence, with this kind of timing, that come up in a political campaign or with Brett Kavanaugh, you know, right before he's confirmed to the Supreme Court.
That doesn't mean they're not true.
But with the timing, you can imagine other motivations a person might have to make up a story or to embellish or misremember it, perhaps willfully.
So I don't know if it's true or not.
I'm kind of agnostic about it when it comes to Joe Biden, but here's what I do know.
There is no basis at all to disbelieve Tara Reade while believing Christine Ford.
Now, you could be skeptical of both, or if you really are in the Believe All Women camp, you could believe both, which I think would be silly, but that would at least be consistent.
And you could make a case, as I'll explain in a minute, you could make a case for leaning towards believing Tara Reade while not believing Christine Ford.
There is no way for an honest person to make the opposite case.
Because think about it.
Tara Reade.
Here are the things in her favor.
Or in favor of her allegations being true.
Tara Reade.
She told people about the alleged assault when it happened.
And they corroborate it.
There's at least two people who said they heard about this way before she came forward to the media during the political campaign.
So that's something.
Other aspects of the story have been corroborated by witnesses.
Tangential sort of aspects that she talks about.
She remembers every detail, so that's three things.
And she's accusing a man with a known and recent history of inappropriate physical behavior to women, and this is behavior that we have seen for ourselves, so we know for a fact that it occurred.
So that's four things.
Christine Ford, on the other hand, told nobody about it, no aspect of her story was corroborated by anybody, remembered almost nothing about what happened, and was accusing a man with no established or recent history of inappropriate behavior to women.
So, given those two things, if you find yourself saying, yeah, but I still believe Christine Ford, well, then you're just a partisan hack.
That's all there is to it.
Number two.
And social media, the social media site TikTok in particular, has recently been overrun by videos kind of like this one.
Watch.
All the teens say yes to MDMA Your girl is a Mozart six with your dad
No leaf for my mouth, but a stripe for my ass They won't be there if it goes bad
And this one Nice little conga line there
And then also there's a nice little Cupid shuffle that some of the other nurses were doing.
Watch this.
And then this one's probably my favorite right here.
So this is a new trend where nurses and hospital staff are recording choreographed dance videos
at the hospital and posting them online.
Bye.
And the media has been swooning over it, you know, saying it's inspirational and motivating and whatever.
I've gotten myself into a lot of trouble on Twitter because I tweeted a criticism of this.
Now, call me crazy.
A lot of people have over this and just in general.
But I don't think hospital staff should be taking time out to choreograph dance routines at the hospital and post them online.
You know, I would say that that's actually wildly, insanely inappropriate.
And I would say that even in normal times.
Okay, if I had a loved one that was at the hospital dying and the nurse was off choreographing a dance routine on the clock at the hospital, I'd be upset about that.
I would be.
It seems reasonable to be upset about that.
But especially they shouldn't be doing it now.
Because we have been told that we needed to shut down the whole economy and embrace a Great Depression because hospitals are being overwhelmed.
That's what we were told.
And now, while millions of Americans wait in line at food banks because their jobs have been taken from them because of the overrun hospitals, while that's happening, we have hospital staff posting dance videos.
I think a lot of people are going to look at that and say, why did I lose my job?
You're telling me my business was destroyed for this?
They got nothing to do and they're recording dance videos.
Okay, then why can't I get back to work then?
Isn't that a- that's a good question, isn't it?
Because there are two possibilities here.
When you see these videos.
Either these are hospital staff that have nothing to do and so are just- are dancing and recording it, okay?
In which case, let's get back to work.
Or, these are happening at hospitals where there are people dying in a pandemic, and you've got nurses dancing down the hallway.
Literally dancing down the hallway.
And recording it and posting it online.
I mean, either way, and I think it's kind of a mixture, too.
I mean, some of these videos are at the coronavirus hospitals, and some are at hospitals where they've got nothing better to do.
Either way, in both cases, I would say wildly, insanely inappropriate.
And I can't believe that so many people are defending it.
I mean, I don't know.
I keep saying I can't believe when people have stupid positions on things, but maybe I should start believing it because it's pretty common.
Listen, the argument I've heard in response to my criticism, and not just my criticism, I mean, lots of people, I've gotten a lot of emails and messages from people who work at hospitals anonymously telling me and saying, hey, I don't want you to put this out there publicly with my name attached to it, but I totally agree with you, I work at a hospital and this is crazy.
I mean, we would never do this at my hospital, right?
So, I'm certainly not the only one critical of it, but the argument I've heard is that Well, two things.
One, I've been told that I shouldn't be against people having fun.
I'm coming out against joy and fun.
No, it's to say that nurses shouldn't be recording choreographed dance routines and posting them online in a hospital during a pandemic and a shutdown that's cost 17 million people their jobs in three weeks.
That is not the same thing as saying nobody should ever have fun.
There's a lot of room in between nobody have fun and nurses please don't record choreographed dance routines and post them online during a pandemic.
I feel like there's a lot of room in between, right?
And then the other thing is, well, I don't understand that people that have these high-stress jobs, there's a lot of gallows humor, and sometimes they joke around and have fun just as a way of lightening the environment.
I get that, okay?
But you don't need to post it online.
And it doesn't need to be choreographed either, I would think.
But even... Why do you need to post it online?
Why does it need to go... It's like if I...
Let's say I did have a loved one that was dying in the hospital.
Now, I'm under no illusion that the nurses who are tending to my dying loved one, that they're in a state of mourning and are living the rest of their lives somber and going home and crying about it.
I'm sure they're not.
Probably they're in dealing with my dying loved one and then they go to the next room and they could be smiling and joking around for all I know.
That's fine.
But obviously, yes, I understand they're doing that, but they're not going to walk into the room with me when I'm sitting there with my dying loved one and say, I was just having a great laugh in the next room.
Let me tell you this joke that I heard.
No, that would be extremely inappropriate.
Not because I'm saying they shouldn't be joking around, but keep that to yourself.
Okay?
Have some decorum and some class.
You keep it to yourself.
You don't bring it into the room with the dying people.
Clearly.
Um, but no, I'm just a, I'm a big Scrooge, of course.
That's the main thing.
Which I am a Scrooge, but I don't think that has anything to do with this.
Number three, the Philadelphia Transit Authority last week issued guidelines, apparently, um, asking people in the city who use public transportation to put on a mask.
And a few days later, uh, when some people tried to get on a bus without a mask, they were informed that, uh, they had to get off, and they couldn't ride, and here's, here's how that, that went.
Watch this.
If you do not have a mask, you cannot ride public transportation.
Sir!
Sir!
You have to get off the bus.
You have to get off the bus.
Sir!
Sir!
Now, notice how that guy who's screaming in an enclosed environment, spreading his spittle all around, is not wearing a mask himself.
A guy without a mask is screaming at people for not having masks, which is just great.
And then, uh, one of the people on the bus didn't have a mask and wasn't able to just produce one out of thin air, and so then this happened.
What the f**k am I holding on to?
Yo, you can feel this, man!
Look what the f**k y'all told me, dumbass!
Yeah!
Get the f*** off my f***ing leg!
Wait.
F*** off!
Oh, f*** off!
F*** off!
I ain't looking at nothing.
I'm going!
Take me if you f***ing want!
It seems like it'd be easier maybe to just give the guy a mask or a bandana or something to wear around his face.
Instead, officers dragged him off the bus by his feet, violating social distancing in order to enforce social distancing, which seems like a rather foolish strategy.
Or you see a guy who's supposedly violating social distancing, so you get in his face and you start wrestling him.
Like, maybe that's not the best way to approach this.
I don't know.
But then again, I'm the guy who thinks that nurses shouldn't be doing choreographed dance routines at hospitals during a pandemic, so what do I know, right?
Because if anything was spread on that bus, it was spread either when the guy without a mask was shouting, or when they were wrestling the other guy without a mask.
Those would be the two occasions where there was really a risk of a virus being spread, and that is when they were making an attempt to enforce these policies to prevent the spread of the virus.
So that just doesn't make a lot of sense.
And it gets even dumber, in fact, because after the outcry from this video, the Transit Authority announced that they're no longer going to enforce the policy.
So they said, oh, you know, never mind.
We're not going to enforce the policy anymore.
Well, hold on a second.
Either the policy is necessary for public health or it isn't.
If you're just going to get rid of the policy because people were upset, then doesn't that prove that the policy had no reason to exist in the first place?
Or how about this?
This is why government agencies are so stupid.
They're not capable.
The people in government are not capable of thinking with any nuance or actually thinking through a problem.
Because it's actually not a bad idea to encourage people to have a mask when they ride on public transportation.
But rather than trying to enforce the law by dragging people off the bus by their feet, and then going to the other extreme and saying, never mind, we're not going to have that policy, how about just think of better ways of enforcing it?
You don't have to get rid of the policy, just think of a better way of enforcing it.
Like, for example, if somebody doesn't have a mask, then you give them one.
Or, I mean, even something as simple as, hey, like, put your shirt over your nose or something.
Something like that.
Now, it's not as good as a medical mask, but it's a lot better than nothing.
And so, even, how about that instead?
But, again, what do I know?
Alright.
That was three headlines, but I think we'll keep it at three.
Those were three longer ones.
And finally, the last thing I need to do before we wrap up for the show, we get to our daily cancellation.
This may seem a little bit like out of left field here, but I will have to cancel today some chickens.
Some actual chickens, I mean.
Chicks actually.
That's what they call baby chickens in the farming world.
Just a little bit of technical terminology for you.
So my wife went out this weekend and bought some chicks.
And she had been threatening to do this for a while, and then she went out, and she was supposed to be going to the store for something, and somehow, I think she went to Walmart, and on the way home, she found some chicks.
I never really found out how exactly.
And she came home with them, because she apparently has dreams of being a chicken farmer, and who am I to stand in the way of my wife's dreams?
But unfortunately, after only one day of having the chicks, I have to cancel them, and I'm going to show you why.
This is pretty disturbing stuff, okay?
I went to check on them before bed the other night.
And only because my wife asked me to.
So I usually check on my kids before bedtime, but now I gotta check on the chickens too.
I don't really know what I'm checking on the chickens for, exactly.
Or, like, what am I looking for?
And even if I discover something amiss, what am I supposed to do about it?
Like, if I find that a chicken is dying, what do you want me to do?
Am I supposed to perform mouth-to-mouth CPR?
I don't know.
But I went to check on the chickens and dutifully, you know, as a good husband, and what I discovered is pretty terrifying.
Take a look at this picture here.
And they're under a heat lamp, so the color, you know, so that's why there's the reddish tint to it.
But I think the reddish tint works because it gives it a sort of satanic vibe.
And these are satanic chickens.
You see here, this is how they group themselves.
The dark-colored chickens are huddled together, while the light-colored chickens are huddled in a different group.
They have segregated themselves by color.
My wife brought racist chickens into the house.
Which, personally, I should cancel my wife, too.
Because how do you not ask this question?
When you're at the farm or wherever, buying your chickens, you didn't think to ask them, are these chickens racist?
You didn't think to say, can I get the non-racist chickens?
This is worse than the time that my wife came home with a transphobic kittens once.
This is even worse than that.
Now, I have tried my hardest, as you can imagine, to instill an appreciation for cultural diversity and racial tolerance in my household.
It is my number one priority as a father and a husband.
It's the main thing I'm concerned about.
And so imagine my shock when I look and I see racism and prejudice Among the poultry.
In my house.
And yes, they are in my house right now.
Those chickens are in my house physically.
Because I've been told, we can't put them outside, it's too cold for them.
I mean, they're animals.
You know, I think they go outside.
But what do I know?
So, of course, I forcibly desegregated and integrated them.
And, you know, I'm sitting there for like 20 minutes, trying to get them, trying to desegregate.
I'm initiating a desegregation policy.
And they keep going back, clumping together by color.
Um, so anyway, I killed them all and turned them into chicken nuggets.
So that's the end of that story.
All right.
Um, let's leave it there on a happy note.
And, uh, again, happy Easter once more.
Have a great day.
Be safe.
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.
Hey everyone, it's Andrew Klavan, host of The Andrew Klavan Show.
In an emergency, always important to pay attention to who does what, who lies, who tells the truth, who seizes power, who sticks to the Constitution.
