Today on the Matt Walsh Show, we are told that the shutdowns are worth it because they are allegedly saving lives. In fact, we are told that even if “just one life is saved” that would be enough to justify the destruction of the economy. Well on that note, I know of one type of business we could shut down and save a million lives a year. Also, Five Headlines, including the governor of New Jersey admitting that he “didn’t think about the Bill of Rights” when crafting his stay at home order. And in our daily cancellation, we’ll examine the idea that only white people can be racist. Events in China would seem to contradict that claim.
Check out The Cold War: What We Saw, a new podcast written and presented by Bill Whittle at https://bit.ly/2z2j1NB. 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, we are told that the shutdowns are worth it because they're allegedly saving lives.
In fact, we've been told that even if the shutdowns save just one life, that would be enough to justify the destruction of the economy.
Well, on that note, I've been thinking about it and, you know, it occurs to me that there's one type of business, just one type of business that we could shut down permanently and save a million lives a year just by shutting down this
one type of business.
So, if you are in favor of shutdowns to save lives, then you should agree with me on this point.
We'll talk about that.
Also, five headlines, including the governor of New Jersey admitting that he, quote,
didn't think about the Bill of Rights when he was crafting his stay-at-home order,
which is, of course, not a surprise.
We already knew that.
But to hear him say it out loud is maybe a little bit surprising.
And in our daily cancellation, we will examine the idea that only white people can be racist.
This is what kids are taught in school these days, and especially in college.
But events in China would seem to very much contradict that claim, so we'll talk about that also.
But first, a word from our friends over at ZipRecruiter, and I want to begin Just by giving a thank you to ZipRecruiter and all of the sponsors of this show.
It's a very difficult time for all companies, for everybody in general, and so that's why I want to especially thank the sponsors of this show and of all of our advertising partners at The Daily Wire who are helping to keep us going through this time.
Now, ZipRecruiter is one of our longest standing advertiser partners, and we're really proud to work with them.
The service they provide is indispensable, especially in a time like this.
Today, they wanted to do something a little bit different than the type of ads you're used to hearing.
So here's a message from our sponsor at ZipRecruiter to you.
It says, right now, we cannot be overwhelmed.
We have to work to keep our loved ones safe and protect our communities.
We have to work to stay strong, to stay connected, to stay focused.
We have to work to inspire, to innovate, to build new solutions.
But for all of this to work, we have to work together.
At ZipRecruiter, we connect employers and people every day.
But today is different.
We are partnering with first responders, government officials, the medical community, the innovators in the manufacturing, transportation, and food distribution industries.
To make sure that we are finding the right people for the right jobs right now.
Let's work together.
ZipRecruiter.com slash work together is where you want to go.
Okay, a common retort to conservatives who advocate for opening up the economy is that we are betraying our pro-life principles.
I'm sure you've heard this.
This charge is clearly absurd for a number of reasons.
First of all, one of our primary arguments is that shutting down society is probably not the most effective way of saving lives.
Many people are still dying of the virus, even during the shutdown.
Many will likely die once the shutdown is lifted.
And even the most ardent supporter of shutdowns must agree that we have to lift the shutdowns eventually.
I mean, eventually we have to go back to our lives, and the virus is still going to be there when we go back to our lives.
So we may not even be saving any lives at all when all is said and done.
And on top of that toll, we now have to add to it the lives that are destroyed, ruined, ended, in some cases, by the collapse of the economy.
All told, you know, it is reasonable to worry that the cost in human death and suffering will be greater because of the shutdown than it would have been Had we not shut down and had we adopted preventive measures while still allowing the economy to continue.
Now, you may disagree with that argument, okay?
But it's obviously not an argument that denies the value of human life.
That's not what the argument is doing.
The argument is saying that human life is extraordinarily valuable, infinitely valuable, but our method right now of protecting human life is not a good method.
Here's a better one.
That's the argument.
Okay?
Also, Nobody who criticizes the strategy of willfully plunging the nation into a Great Depression is suggesting that the elderly and others who are most vulnerable to the virus should be directly killed.
Okay?
None of us are saying that.
This is not like a eugenics argument.
We're merely suggesting that there are other and better ways of protecting those populations, and that the enormous cost of our current method is far too high, and the payoff is far too uncertain.
Now, by contrast, advocates of abortion support the direct and purposeful killing of vulnerable people at the earliest stages of life.
That is a very different sort of position to take.
Even if, okay, even if the anti-shutdown people We're to argue that the elderly aren't worth protecting and we shouldn't bother protecting them, which that is most emphatically not what we're arguing.
But what I'm saying is, even if we took that stance, that stance would look positively Gandhian in comparison to those who openly celebrate and advocate the medical execution of infants.
Which brings us to an important point.
The flip side of the erroneous, you know, you anti-shutdown people are contradicting your pro-life views accusation is that a great many of the pro-shutdown people actually are contradicting their pro-abortion views.
As I've explained, it is possible for a reasonable person to affirm the inherent value of human life while also arguing that the shutdowns are unwise.
That is possible to do.
It's very reasonable.
Indeed, a reasonable person can argue that the inherent value of human life is the reason why we should not have the shutdowns.
So it's not just that in spite of that, but it's because of that that we shouldn't have the shutdowns.
That's a reasonable argument.
Again, you don't have to agree, but it's a reasonable argument.
But there's the other side of that, and what I can't see, on the other hand, is how a person can argue that it is just and proper to intentionally kill a million human lives every single year for the sake of preserving the lifestyle of the parents, and then also argue that we must destroy the lifestyles and livelihoods of millions of people in order to preserve human life.
So there seems to be a logical disconnect there.
The latter argument can only potentially make sense if human life has inherent value, while the former argument can only potentially make sense if human life has subjective and conditional value, that is, not inherent value.
So which is it?
The pro-shutdown camp declares that every life has value, every life is worth saving, I agree with them, But the odd thing is that so many of them don't really agree with them.
They don't appear to have a coherent perspective on human life and its value.
And that's one of the reasons why this debate has been so fruitless and doesn't go anywhere.
Because we don't have an agreement on the inherent value of human life.
And there are people who are making claims as if they believe that human life has inherent value, when in fact they don't believe that.
And that's how we end up in this morbidly ironic situation where a society that kills a million babies a year for convenience has shut itself down to prevent the elderly from dying.
If there's any principle here that can be found, it would seem that the principle is that adult life is more valuable and more worthy of protection than the lives of children.
Which, of course, is incoherent, not to mention backwards and evil.
All life has value.
But a healthy society, I would say, should be far more willing to accept the death of adults than the death of children.
Which isn't to say that we shouldn't do anything to protect adults.
I'm not saying that.
But adults must die eventually, after all.
Children should not.
Least of all, should they die by our own hands, which is what's happening.
A properly ordered and healthy society would see the death of an adult as a tragedy, which it is, but the death of a child it would see as something so unspeakable that the word tragedy doesn't even cover it.
We seem to have flipped those things around.
Flipped it on its head.
And that doesn't make sense to me.
But, look, Perhaps I'm being too cynical.
I have to leave open the possibility that all the pro-abortion people who are now applauding the ruination of our economy, because even a sacrifice as extraordinary as that is worth it to save just one life, supposedly, they say, maybe all these people have experienced a dramatic change of heart.
You know, maybe this is not hypocrisy or inconsistency, but it's a sign that a new leaf has been turned in our culture.
Maybe these people have discovered within themselves for the first time a real passion for defending the worth and dignity of human life.
In that case, you know, I welcome them to the pro-life team.
Welcome aboard.
Glad to have you.
And I would just like to suggest that if we're pursuing a policy of shutdowns to save lives, we only really need to close one type of business.
It's the one type of business that kills a million babies a year in this country.
Now we can argue about the other shutdowns, we can argue about the wisdom of the other shutdowns and whether or not we should be shutting down other businesses like restaurants and retail shops and so on.
But anybody who really wants to protect human life should agree that this is the best place to start.
This at least is one type of business, abortion clinics, that we should certainly shut down.
And there is no doubt that we could save many, many lives just by doing that.
So, I'm glad we could come to this understanding.
Now let's move on to headlines.
Number one, and thousands of people in Michigan, the Michiganders, what is it?
Michiganites?
Michigany's?
Anyway, thousands of them showed up at the state capitol yesterday to protest the onerous, tyrannical orders coming from the emperor of Michigan, Emperor Whitmer.
And first of all, these patriots deserve to be applauded for standing up and I hope this is the start of a trend.
It's just very beautiful.
It's a beautiful thing to see.
Meanwhile, the emperor herself appeared on NBC to justify her policies and she explained, I'm not making this up, I'll play you the clip.
She explained that it's snowing in Michigan anyway and so you don't really need your liberties because it's snowing.
Watch this.
We just had snow.
I've got snow on the ground here in Michigan right now in Lansing.
We're expecting up to 30 inches in the Upper Peninsula.
The fact that we're cracking down on people traveling between homes or planting or landscaping or golfing really for a couple more weeks isn't going to meaningfully impact people's ability to do it because the snow will do that in and of itself.
We're cracking down on people planting.
That's actually what she said.
Think about that.
Cracking down on people planting.
But that's okay, because it's snowing, so you can't do this stuff anyway.
Which, of course, raises a question.
Well, it raises many questions, one of which is this.
If you're saying that nobody can do these things anyway, then why are you banning them?
What's the point of saying, you know, you're forbidden from doing this, but you can't do this anyway, so you shouldn't worry about the fact that you're forbidden from doing it?
Well, then why are you bothering to forbid them from doing it?
Of course, in reality, you still can do all of those things.
For example, you could still plant, even in Michigan, you could still buy seeds and plant them, you just do it indoors.
We have plants growing inside our house right now, many people do.
Even though I don't live in Michigan.
So, it's not true, first of all, but even if it was, the excuse makes no sense.
Number two, the new unemployment numbers have been released.
Five million Americans applied for unemployment last week.
That makes the total number of unemployed since this all began about 22 million, or 15% of the labor force.
We have officially lost 15% of the labor force in a month, which, it goes without saying, is unprecedented.
It has never happened before.
So we are on entirely We are in uncharted waters at the moment.
But really, these numbers, we have to remember, I have to keep reminding people when we talk about this, that these numbers are almost meaningless.
Almost meaningless, not because they don't matter, but because the actual numbers are much, much higher than this.
Okay.
All this tells us is the number of people who successfully applied for unemployment.
It does not include the many millions of people who tried to apply and couldn't get through because the systems were down, and also all the people who don't qualify for unemployment in the first place, even though they are without a job right now.
So, we talk about 22 million.
That is, I mean, not even the tip of the iceberg.
That is just, that's a minimal starting point, but we have to remember that it's much higher than that.
And this is also, it's important to note, because I've seen some people this morning All but celebrating because, well, 5 million people filed for unemployment, but that's down from 6 million the week before.
So it's only 5 million.
Only 5 million people.
Which, even if it was just the 5 million, there's nothing to celebrate there.
That's not an improvement.
That is 5 million additional people who don't have jobs now.
But in fact, it's a lot more than five million.
That's the point.
Number three, Joe Biden was on Morning Joe today and offered a very touching story.
Well, I think it was a touching story.
I couldn't really tell, but maybe let's see if you can make heads or tails of this.
I sat with a guy yesterday on a telephone.
And he's telling me, he said, I don't know.
He said, look, I worked at the hospital.
And he said, then I got myself in a position where I got the virus.
So they quarantined me.
And they put me in the hospital.
And I made it out.
And so I'm out.
But they don't want me with my family.
I'm on the third floor.
I spent 15 minutes on the phone with him saying, he said, I have a three-year-old and a four-year-old and they come to the door outside and they just knock on the door and say, Daddy, Daddy, can I see you, Daddy?
Can I see you, Daddy?
So we spent time going through it.
I used to do it with my kids when they were little and I couldn't see them and we'd play games.
I said, knock, make up a game, knock, knock on the door and say, this is, you know, practical things.
The guy's scared to death.
And he's worried about his children.
He's worried about his wife.
I mean, these are practical things.
And the president talks about this like, okay, it's going to be okay.
We're going to open tomorrow.
We're going to do this.
I mean, it just, I must tell you, it drives me crazy.
I don't know why he doesn't understand about people's fears.
So I'm not sure.
I don't know exactly what's going on there.
It seems like he was starting to say that he What, he was in quarantine or something once when he was a parent of young children?
I don't know exactly.
I was kind of distracted because I was more paying attention to his wife sitting next to him.
And you could see the expression on her face where she was sort of thinking, like, where is this going, Joe?
Where is this going?
It's actually a look I'm very familiar with because I get that from my wife sometimes when I start saying something publicly.
And she kind of has this look like, okay, where is this headed?
All right, let's stay on the theme of bizarre cable news interviews because these are fun.
Here's the Emperor of New Jersey, Emperor Murphy, on Tucker Carlson last night.
He made a rather stunning admission.
Watch.
You made that decision, and as I noted before, 15 congregants at a synagogue in New Jersey were arrested and charged for being in a synagogue together.
Now, the Bill of Rights, as you well know, protects Americans' right and shrines their right to practice their religion as they see fit and to congregate together to assemble peacefully.
By what authority did you nullify the Bill of Rights in issuing this order?
How do you have the power to do that?
That's above my pay grade, Tucker, so I wasn't thinking of the Bill of Rights when we did this.
We went to all... First of all, we looked at the data and the science and it says... I wasn't thinking about the Bill of Rights when I did this.
That is...
That's some honesty right there.
I appreciate the honesty.
And of course, we already knew that.
It's very clear that they're not thinking about the Bill of Rights when they come up with these shutdowns.
The fact that he feels so safe in saying that, he has no problem coming out and saying, ah, I wasn't thinking about the Bill of Rights.
Bill of Rights, schmell of rights.
That should concern us, though.
But it tells you exactly where, I mean, For all the people who are still denying that our basic civil liberties are being infringed upon, maybe just open your eyes and also your ears.
Listen to what these people are saying.
They will tell you.
They are all but telling us, yes, we are infringing on your civil liberties.
We are doing it.
They're basically announcing it as they do it.
And yet you still have morons out there saying, what are you talking about?
Our liberties aren't being infringed upon.
He just said, yeah, I didn't think about the Bill of Rights.
So it's not relevant to what I'm doing.
Just like we've had cops saying, you know, First Amendment is non-essential, your rights are suspended.
5.
Finally, Dr. Fauci did an interview on Snapchat's Good Luck America, which is evidently a thing.
Reading now from the New York Post, it says, toward the end of the taped segment, Fauci was asked, if you're swiping on a dating app like Tinder or Bumble or Grindr, And you match with someone that you think is hot, and you're just kind of like, maybe it's fine if this one stranger comes over.
What do you say to that person?
Okay, so we're asking Dr. Fauci for dating advice now.
Which, why not?
We get economic advice from him, we get all kinds of advice.
Dr. Fauci is now our national guru, who we go to for advice on all topics, because he's an all-knowing, all-seeing, omnipotent being.
And he replied, you know, that's tough because that's what's called relative risk.
Then he dropped the bombshell.
If you're willing to take a risk, and you know, everybody has their own tolerance for risks, you could figure out if you want to meet somebody.
And then he added, if you want to go a little bit more intimate, well, then that's your choice regarding a risk.
Okay, so first of all, Dr. Fauci has given you permission to have sexual relations with strangers.
So he's given you, if you're going to him for permission, he's given it to you.
Because, as I said, you know, of course, we go to Dr. Fauci for really anything you want to do now.
You have to go to Dr. Fauci.
He'll tell you if you can do it or not.
Is this consistent with everything else he said?
No, but, you know, we can't expect him to be consistent.
That's, that's... No, he's... He'll decide in the moment what's the safest thing and what isn't.
So we've got Dr. Fauci saying, yeah, you know, if you want to have sex with a stranger, go ahead and do that.
Meanwhile, in some states, like in Michigan, you're not allowed to have your own family members over just to visit for dinner.
So you can't have your parents over for dinner, but you can invite, or we're told it's safe to invite a stranger over to have sex.
That makes a lot of sense, right?
Now let's move on to your daily cancellation, but before we do, A note about the Daily Wire.
Quarantine, you know, might not be any fun, but you know what is fun?
The Daily Wire deal that I'm about to share with you.
When you become a Daily Wire Insider Plus or All Access member, then you will get not one, but two of the highly coveted Leftist Tears tumblers.
Rumor has it that this tumbler completely eliminates the threat of thirst.
if you fill it with some sort of liquid and then drink the liquid.
That is not just rumor, but in fact, that's a scientific fact.
Daily Wire members get many amazing benefits, including of course, the magnificent,
the irreplaceable, singular, leftist, tears, tumbler. You also get an ad-free website experience,
access to all of our live broadcasts and show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro
show, access to the mailbag, and now exclusive election insight op-eds from Ben Shapiro.
As well, Daily Wire members also get to ask us questions during backstage, and our new all-access tier allows you to join in live online Q&As with me and the other hosts as well.
So there's a ton of stuff you get.
And again, that's two leftist tiers tumblers, not just one, but two, when you become a Daily Wire Insider Plus or All Access member.
Okay, today we're cancelling the people who claim that only white people can be racist.
That whole school of thought is officially cancelled.
And just to be clear, that is a very real school of thought.
There are people out there who not only believe this, but teach it.
It's taught in schools.
Many leftists believe, and will tell you if you ask them, that racism is power plus prejudice.
That's the equation.
And only white people have power, allegedly, so only they can be racist.
And this holds true.
It doesn't matter.
I mean, even when Barack Obama was president, according to this formulation, he had no power.
He was the most powerful man in the world, but he actually had no power because of the color of his skin.
And so you could be racist to him, but he couldn't be racist to you, even though he's the president and you're just a peon, right?
Now, of course, all you have to do really is open your eyes and look around and you can see that this is not the case and it's totally insane.
In fact, the very claim that racism is exclusive to white people is itself racism against whites.
So it's not hard to disprove.
But here's one thing, one example that will be especially hard, I think, for the only whites are racist crowd to navigate around, and that is China.
Since, you know, dumping on China is the popular thing to do right now, and for good reason.
They certainly deserve it.
Let's add this into the mix.
A McDonald's in China actually recently tried to ban black people from entering the restaurant.
Okay?
Here's the BBC report about the incident.
It says, McDonald's in China has apologized after a branch in the industrial city of Guangzhou barred black people from entering.
A video shared on social media showed a notice that read, We've been informed that from now on, black people are not allowed to enter the restaurant.
McDonald's said that when it found out about the notice, it temporarily closed the restaurant.
Tensions have been running high between Africans and local people in the city.
Last week, hundreds of Africans in Guangzhou were evicted from hotels and apartments after online rumors that coronavirus was spreading among African people.
Guangzhou is a hub for African traders buying and selling goods and is home to one of China's largest African communities.
And so on, and it goes on up there.
This is not very surprising.
There have been many reports of anti-black bigotry and violence in response to the pandemic in China, which of course makes no sense on a number of levels, starting with the fact that the virus started in China and because of China, not in Africa.
But then bigotry, of course, never really does make sense.
But this is all in the context of Chinese culture.
Which has a huge problem with racism, especially anti-black racism, but also just racism in general.
And Chinese culture is very racist.
And this extends beyond China.
Anti-black bigotry is all over East Asia, South Asia, India, you know.
Anyone who has any experience with any of these countries knows this and will tell you.
It's the very large elephant in the room.
Whenever somebody is preaching about the unique evils of white racism, You've got Asia, you know, the very big elephant in the room, or on the globe anyway, where racism is extremely common and socially acceptable.
Here's another example.
This is a Chinese ad for a laundry detergent.
Now, I want you to watch this and think, what kind of culture produces an ad like this?
watch.
I'm going to get you.
That was an ad.
Chinese detergent.
And in the ad, a black man is stuffed into a washing machine, and when he's lifted out, he's now Chinese.
Okay?
Now, can you imagine an ad like that in this country?
Can you imagine, like, Thai detergent putting out an ad like that?
No, you can't.
It could never happen.
I mean, that could only exist in a country where racism is open and acceptable.
A country like China.
And it's not just China, by the way.
It's not just Asia, either.
I mean, the fact is, while the left tries to make the claim that the U.S.
is somehow the most racist country on Earth, the truth is probably exactly the opposite of that.
Now, racism exists in this country, obviously, like it exists everywhere and always will, but it's not acceptable, and being openly racist will get you ostracized in this country.
And this is also in a country with more ethnic diversity than any other.
So it's not like it's easy for us not to be racist because we're all the same race anyway.
No, it's not something like that.
We've got a whole bunch of ethnicities and races living in this country and we do a better job with that and of promoting diversity and of, you know, Getting rid of racism than any other country does.
But, you know, of course, you're not going to hear that from the left.
And they've got this very simplistic narrative, and it's really easy and it's convenient.
White people are evil.
White people are racist.
And so they have no choice but to ignore, you know, the racism that happens all across the world among, you know, billions of people all across the world.
All right.
Let's go to emails.
And if you become a Daily Wire member, you can always email the show through the mailbag.
This is from Tinas is the name.
That's with a T. Tinas.
I don't know if that's his... God, if that's his Christian name or not.
I'm not sure.
But he says, Dear Matt, I actually don't mind the whole state-enforced mandatory mask wearing because they're just trying to keep us safe and healthy.
But I don't wear one myself because they get in the way of my cigarettes.
Sorry.
I appreciate that, Tinus.
And you know what?
I also think that, I've said before, I think we can reopen the economy.
And I think it makes sense, at least in certain contexts and in certain industries, for there to be masks.
And even if you want to have laws and policies in individual places that require masks, I don't necessarily see a problem with that.
As long as it's not overly onerous and as long as it makes sense.
Now requiring somebody to have a mask when they're walking down the street, that doesn't make sense.
But in certain industries, it might make sense.
In the restaurant industry, for example, maybe.
So I don't really have a problem with that.
One of the issues that I have, one of the big issues, is that only a month ago, the government was telling us, don't wear masks.
Not just telling us not to, but scolding us for wearing them.
And now they want to mandate them.
Let's go to, this is from SP, it says, I'm a homeschooling parent going on two years.
Do you think there's going to be a backlash against homeschooling due to all the parents who have been currently forced into homeschooling because of COVID-19 school closures?
I recognize this issue is already under attack under normal circumstances and fear possible long-term policy repercussions.
Well, you talk about a backlash from government policy or just from society in general.
I think, looking on the bright side of it, I think that there are going to be people Who've been homeschooling during this and discover that it's not as hard as they thought and maybe they actually enjoy it.
I've actually heard from quite a few parents who've told me this.
That they've been forced into becoming homeschool parents as all parents have across the country.
And they said they actually enjoy it.
And it's made them rethink the idea of homeschooling.
So I think it probably would be the opposite.
You're going to see an increase in homeschooling.
It's going to become more popular.
Now, will the government try to counteract that when they see parents pulling kids out of government schools?
Is the government going to try to tamp down on that to try to get their To try to get their subjects back into the school classrooms.
I think that's a very real possibility.
From Chuck, says, Hi Matt, you've been spending a lot of time criticizing the government, which I understand, but I haven't heard you grapple with what the Bible says about this.
To remind you, then he quotes, let everyone be subject to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established.
The authorities that exist have been established by God.
Consequently, whoever rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will be bring to judgment on themselves.
Isn't it our responsibility, he continues, to listen to, respect, and yes, obey these shutdown orders, even if we disagree with them?
Isn't that what the Bible says?
All right, well, and that's Romans 13 that he's quoting there, of course.
So Chuck, what I would say is, I think there are two ways to interpret that passage that you just quoted.
One is to interpret it broadly, universally, Very literally, and say it applies across the board, and basically every government is instituted by God, every government has the authority, has divine authority in effect, and so it is always wrong to disobey and to rebel against the government.
You know, you could interpret it that way, right?
The other way of interpreting it is to understand it as something with limitations.
And to understand that the government can actually lose its God-given authority and its moral authority.
And by losing its moral authority, it loses its God-given authority.
So those are the two ways, generally speaking, of interpreting it.
Now, the problem... Yes, if you interpret it the first way, then that would obviously apply to all these shutdowns.
And all we could really do is... Now, we could complain, I guess, but we have to go along with it.
You certainly can't defy it.
And I guess, really, we shouldn't even complain about it, or speak out against it, because we have to believe that this is God-given authority, and they're doing what's best for us, and so just cooperate and go along.
If you're going to go with the first interpretation, yes, that is how you would approach the shutdowns.
The problem, though, I think is rather obvious.
Because if that's the case, then that would have applied to the Nazi government in Germany in the 1940s.
And we would have to say, we would have to say, That the Nazi government was instituted by God, it had divine authority, and anyone who disobeyed or rebelled against, you know, the Jews in the ghettos who rebelled against the government, they were doing the wrong thing.
They were doing something that was morally wrong.
And that their responsibility was just to get on the train cars and go to the concentration camp.
That's what you would have to say if you're going with that first interpretation.
You would also have to say, of course, that this country was founded illegitimately, because this country was founded on a rebellion against a governing authority.
And that raises all kinds of questions, because if that's the case, then our government, I guess, is not legitimate, so does it have governing?
I think by that interpretation, maybe you would say this government has no authority whatsoever, because it was founded illegitimately by rebelling against I think this interpretation becomes just morally obscene and illogical.
I think it's very clear.
It's self-evident.
That, for example, the Nazi government had no God-given authority whatsoever.
And that to rebel against it was not only acceptable, but was the morally right thing to do and was courageous.
And it's what God wanted.
So that to me just If you want to make that argument, you can, but I think you're interpreting a biblical passage in a way that is morally obscene, and I think we have to avoid doing that.
Which leaves us with the second interpretation, which is there are some limitations on that, and the government can lose its God-given authority.
Another example, our government says that it's okay to kill babies, like we talked about at the beginning of the show.
A million babies a year are killed legally, And according to the interpretation you're going with here, it would seem that we can't really defy that or rebel against it, and we just have to accept it, because the government says it's okay to kill babies, so therefore it is.
I don't believe that.
I don't believe it for a second.
There is an authority higher than the government.
Now, we know that under normal circumstances, the government derives its authority from God, but that means that God is, of course, above the government.
And the government cannot overturn basic moral laws.
So, I go with the fact that there are limitations on that authority.
And then it becomes a question of, do these shutdowns exceed those limitations?
And that's a question open for debate.
I think it does, and my answer is yes, I think it does.
Because the government itself is acting unlawfully.
We know the way that our system is set up, the ultimate supreme legal authority is not just the opinion or the whim of a governor or a bureaucrat or a senator or the president.
The ultimate legal authority is the Constitution of the United States.
And they are defying that.
So they are acting unlawfully.
And therefore, forfeiting their authority, in my view.
But it's an interesting discussion to have, so I thank you for the email.
Thanks, everybody, 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 Knoll 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.
