The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 472 - The Attack On Parental Rights

Episode Date: April 23, 2020

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, an upcoming anti-homeschooling summit at Harvard will be moderated by a professor who believes that “the state confers legal parenthood.” He is not alone in this view. The anti-homeschool position is an anti-parental rights position. Also, Five Headlines, including Andrew Cuomo’s absolutely deranged defense of the lockdown policy. And in our Daily Cancellation, I must play for you, and discuss, possibly the most disturbing video footage you will ever see in your life. 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. Just head on over to dailywire.com/subscribe. That’s dailywire.com/subscribe, coupon code WALSH, and get the rarest of all beverage vessels, times two. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, an upcoming anti-homschooling summit at Harvard, which we talked about a few days ago, will be moderated by a professor who believes that, quote, the state confers legal parenthood. And he is not alone in this view. The anti-hombschool position is an anti-parental rights position. And that's why it should concern so many of us, whether you're, whether you homeschool or not, it should concern you as a parent that, especially in academia, this is such a common view. So we'll talk about that. Also, five headlines, including Andrew Cuomo's absolutely deranged defense of the lockdown policy. You got to hear this. And in our daily cancellation, I must play for you and discuss possibly the most disturbing video footage that you will ever see in your life.

And I don't mean that as a joke. It really is. So you've got to stick around and see that. But we start with homeschool. Now, we talked at the beginning of the week about an article in Harvard magazine advocating a, quote, presumptive ban on homeschooling for the The reason that, according to the professor, the Harvard professor advocating it, her reasons are that a lot of Christians do it, so it's bad. And also, parents might abuse their kids. Plus, homeschool parents are illiterate bumpkins.

And that is only a slight exaggeration of her argument. Only slight. But I went through and I responded to it on Monday or Tuesday or whatever that was. So I'm not going to repeat all of that here. Also, as I mentioned, attacks on homeschooling have ramped up in recent weeks. And so there's a reason why we're seeing a lot of this stuff now because millions of parents are homeschooling for the first time because of schools are closed. And the elites in media and academia are worried, and I think for good reason, worried

that homeschool may become much more common and popular after this, which I think it will. So they're trying to head that off at the past by publishing our articles and reports talking about how bad and dangerous and difficult homeschooling is. So we discussed the editorial in the Washington Post a few weeks ago, arguing that homeschooling is, quote, setting back an entire generation of kids. Kids are being set back because their own parents are teaching them things. God forbid, if you can imagine. But here's another example from today.

Before we get to the Harvard thing, we'll get back to that. But Time Magazine published an article, which details the horrors of teaching your kids at home. Now, it's true, I'll be the first to admit as a homeschool parent, although my wife does the vast majority of it, but I can certainly attest that homeschooling can be difficult. And I don't doubt that many parents are struggling with it right now, whether you are homeschooling for the first time or not. It's still a difficult thing, especially as we try to get adjusted to all of this. But there's a reason the media chooses to focus on this with an article like this titled,

I just can't do this. Some overwhelmed parents are opting to abandon pandemic homeschooling. There's a reason we get an article like that, rather than an article with a title like, this is easier than I thought. Some happy parents will opt to keep homeschooling after the pandemic is over. You're not going to see that article with a headline like that,

even though there are many parents who feel that way. And I know that for a fact because I've talked to them. So you're not going to see that. Instead, we see this article. Reading from the article says, frustration is mounting as more families across the U.S. enter their second or even third week of distance learning. And some overwhelmed parents say will be their last. Amid the barrage of learning apps, video meetups, and email assignments that pass as pandemic homeschool, some frustrated and exhausted parents are choosing to disconnect entirely for the rest of the academic year.

Others are cramming all their children's schoolwork into the weekend or taking days off. to help their kids with a week's worth of assignments in one day. Alexandra Nicholson, whose son is in kindergarten, and she lives in Boston, said, we tried to make it work the first week. We put together a schedule. What we found is that forcing a child who is that young into a fake teaching situation is really, really hard. I'd rather have him watch classic Godzilla movies and play in the yard and pretend to be a Jedi

rather than figure out basic math. then it goes through the various other parents who are feeling the same way Sarah Carpendi 44 a mother of two middle schoolers in Roanoke, Virginia said the reality kicked in last week when spring break ended and home learning began Carpiddy, a professor of wildlife biology

of Virginia Tech said I wanted to get into a fetal position and hide out. Now, like I said, homeschooling is difficult. But first of all, you know, a fake teaching environment. Teaching your kid at home is a fake environment. I would say it's not only not a fake environment, but it's the most natural environment for a child to learn that you could possibly have. Even if you send your kid to public school, I would hope that you still are teaching them things at home. I mean, I, you know, we teach our, we have an official sort of homeschool, but then we teach the kids things. all the time outside of that, just throughout the day. It's a very natural environment.

But my point here is not to castigate these mothers, these overwhelmed mothers who were interviewed in the article. The point is about finding these mothers and highlighting this sort of position or this thought process. Why is the media focusing on this? Rather than, as I said, talking about the experience of many other parents who are finding it difficult because it is, but are also enjoying it and finding it fulfilling and thinking to themselves, you know, maybe I'll keep doing it. Now, that brings us to Harvard and the effort among Ivy League professors and others in academia to regulate homeschool out of existence, if not ban it outright. And we're going to talk about those efforts in just a second.

But before we do, a word from Bambi, you know, especially now during this time of economic turmoil, companies need to make sure that they have their HR house in order. You know, it's probably, it's always very important when you're running a business. But now it's probably never been more important than it is right now. Because when running a business, HR issues can absolutely kill you, wrongful termination suits, minimum wage requirements, labor regulations. And HR manager salaries, aren't cheap? either. We're talking about an average of $75,000 a year, which for a lot of businesses, small

businesses and larger businesses, that can be a very difficult thing to deal with. So Bambi spelled BAMB-E was created specifically for small businesses and helping them to navigate this issue of HR. You can get a dedicated HR manager, craft HR policy, and maintain your compliance all for just $99 a month. Okay, so you think $75,000 a year or more versus $99 a month. You're a business owner, so you're better at math than I am. I don't need to explain to it. You're saving a lot of money there. Your dedicated HR managers available by phone, email, or real-time chat from onboarding to

terminations, they customize your policies to fit your business, and they help you manage your employees day-to-day, all for just $99 a month. So let Bambi help get your free HR audit today. go to Bambi.com slash Walsh right now to schedule your free HR audit. That's Bambi.com slash Walsh, spelled BAMB-E-E-E-E-D-C-Walsh.

Okay, so, Harvard, advocating a homeschool ban, and we've talked about the magazine article, they've also got this seminar coming up. This is important for us to pay attention to, because whether you homeschool or not, it should concern you that academia is filled with people who have a certain philosophy of parental rights.

And that's what this is really about. Being anti-homeschool, as many of these people are, explicitly so, is to be anti-parental rights. And this is the worldview that many in academia have, and then they try to pass it on to your children. So, good example of this. The conference coming up at Harvard, it's called homeschooling summit, problems, politics, and prospects for reform. Here's a description from the website. We will convene leaders in education and child welfare policy, legislators and legislative staff, academics, and policy advocates to discuss child rights in connection with homeschooling in the United States. The focus will be on problems of

educational deprivation and child maltreatment that too often occur under the guise of homeschooling in a legal environment of minimal or no oversight. Experts will lead conversations about the available empirical evidence, the current regulatory environment, proposals, for legal reform and strategies for affecting such reform. Now the speakers list, they've got speakers from Harvard, of course, Stanford, Georgetown, Columbia. They've got doctors and bureaucrats. So this is a summit of people from academia, the medical industry, government, all of them coming together with the goal of figuring out how to stop people from own schooling. That's the thrust of it. One speaker in particular really jumps out. Professor James Dwyer of William and Mary

law school. Now, James Dwyer is going to speak a few times of this summit. During one of his times on stage, he's going to be moderating a debate about homeschooling. And here's the debate, okay? On one side of the debate will be this guy Robert Coonsman who advocates regulatory oversight. And then on the other side, taking the stark opposite view will be Elizabeth Bartholette who advocates a ban on homeschooling. So this is the kind of intellectual diversity that you get in the Ivy League. One side says, one side says,

homeschooling is bad, let's regulate it. The other side says, homeschooling is really bad, let's ban it. And this will be moderated, as I said, by James Dwyer. If you want to know about James Dwyer, here he is, I think this tells you everything you need to know about the guy. Here he is. This is from an episode

of Michelle Malkin Investigates, and here's Dwyer. giving his theory, not just on homeschooling, but on parenthood itself. Listen to this. The state needs to be the ultimate guarantor of a child's well-being. There's just no alternative to that. The reason parent-child relationships exist is because the state confers legal parenthood on people through its paternity and maternity laws.

It's the state that is empowering parents to do anything with children, to take them home, to have custody, and to make any kind of decisions about that. The state is the ultimate guarantor of a child's well-being. The state confers legal parenthood. The state allows the parent to make decisions for their families. This, I remind you, is not some random wacko. I mean, he is a wacko, but not a random one. He is a professor at a prestigious law school.

He is advocating a philosophy of parenthood that is shared by many other members of academia at these elite institutions of supposed higher learning. What you really think about the implications of this view that the state confers parenthood, confers means, of course, to grant or bestow. So the act of conceiving, bearing, birthing, and raising a child, according to this view, doesn't make you a parent. That's almost irrelevant to the question.

The state grants that label. The state decides. Your rights as a parent are subordinate to the interests of the state, which is to say you have no rights, really, as a parent, actually. Parenting is a privilege, like operating a motor vehicle on a, you know, on a highway. It's similar to that. It can be, it's a privilege, not a right. It can be granted or rescinded at the pleasure of the state for really any reason. This means that the state.

that the state has a right to your child, more of a right than you do, because you have none. So on this view, when you refuse to send, this is really the issue as far as these people are concerned, when you refuse to send your child to public school, you are depriving the state of what rightfully belongs to it. If you've ever wondered why some people, especially people like this, take homeschooling so personally and get so offended about it is because they think, they look at a child as property of the state and when you don't send your kid to school, you are stealing property from the state.

That's how they see it. So there's about as stark a philosophical difference as you're going to find here. And this is probably the fundamental philosophical difference, or one of them between, because you have, you know, you've got this view. Meanwhile, you have any conservative, worthy of the name, believes that the family is the foundational institution of human civilization. It is the most basic, most important institution. It is the institution from which society springs.

it's the most powerful institution, and rightfully so. Wherever the family goes, so goes civilization. Meanwhile, Dwyer and his professor friends, and indeed many leftists believe, that the state is the foundational institution, and that everything springs from the state, and everything goes back to the state. This is why, I think, many of the arguments we make in defense of homeschool, The arguments that I made in defense of homeschooling earlier in the week,

or the arguments that you would make, most people make, really have no purchase with these pro-banning, pro-oversight people because the arguments to them are irrelevant. My whole point, in essence, was that homeschooling can often be better for the child. That's my defense of it. I think in many cases it is a better environment, a better situation for the child. And I gave my reasons for that. But what Dwyer would say, if he's being honest, is that it doesn't actually matter what's better for the child.

That's not the point. This is about the power of the state and the state claiming what rightfully belongs to it. Here's the problem as far as Dwyer and his ill see it. If you have parental rights and you are allowed to teach your kids and raise them as you see fit, then they might not become the right sort of people. And by the right sort of person, what we mean is the sort of person. what we mean is the sort of person that Dwyer and other college professors think he should be. So he's very concerned that so many people have values and ideas and beliefs and customs that he

personally finds objectionable. This is a big problem to him. How do you solve it? Well, you have the state step in, take control, mold the child into the right sort of person. I think it's another important point to be made here about this idea of parental rights. And I'll make that point. point in just a second. Before I do, let's check in with policy genius. You know, when we look back on our lives, I think we may realize that there are many things we got wrong and we think to ourselves, how did I get this so wrong? Now, me, as you know, if you listen to the show, I have never been wrong about anything. So I can't necessarily relate to this experience. Now, my wife would probably disagree. You know, she would take a different view and say, I've been wrong many times about things.

But, you know, most of us are always going to get things wrong. And that's just life. But there are also things that we can get right on the first try, like shopping for life insurance. That's where policy genius comes in. Policy Genius makes finding the right life insurance a breeze. In minutes, you can compare quotes from top insurers. To find the best price, you could also save $1,500 or more a year by using policy genius

to compare life insurance policies. $1,500 a year, I think we could all use. But we could all use that extra money at any time, especially now. Now, once you apply the PolicyGenius team will handle all the paperwork, all the red tape, they're going to take care of that. And PolicyGenius doesn't just make life insurance easy. They can also help you find the right home and auto insurance or disability insurance. They can do all that.

So even if you look back on your past failed predictions and distress, you'll never be distressed about life insurance with policy genius. 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. At least we can get life insurance right with PolicyGenius. Okay, one other quick point about this parental rights thing. It's, of course, and this is the point, it's not just about the parent, it's about the child. And this is also an issue of the child's rights.

The child has a right to be raised by and in the care of their parents, people who love them, and have their best interests in mind. Yeah, that's another problem with this idea that the state is the guarantor of a child's rights and so on. And the state is the primary authority over a child. The state, despite what you may hear from left is or the way they talk about the state, the state, there's no love there. You can't find love. You can't find care and concern and compassion. That's not what the state does.

As far as the state's concerned, you're just a number. You're a statistic. To actually be recognized as a human being, that requires something that is far more localized, human-to-human relationship. And for a child, that requires the love between a parent and a child. A child has a right to that. So this is also about the child's rights.

Now, it's true that, of course, a parent's parental rights are not absolute. If you are abusive to your child, you know, if you abuse your child physically, sexually, in any other way, then you will lose those rights as well you should. But why do you lose those rights? It's not because you have infringed on the rights of the states and have damaged the property of the state so now they can come in and reclaim their property. No, it's that you have infringed on the rights of your own child. And when you do that, then you can lose your parental rights, as you should. But in that case, the state comes in, out of necessity, the state's going to

come in, in that case, in a situation like that, and take the child out of that situation. And ideally, this is going to be, it's going to be very temporary. The child is not going to become a ward of the state indefinitely in an ideal situation. This is just a temporary measure until the child is put into a different situation, hopefully in an ideal situation given to another family member. And then the state steps out again. This is kind of a, it's a necessary evil in those cases to have the state come in. And the reason I call it a necessary.

evil is because we know the state is often very bad at this. And there are plenty of times when kids are being abused and the state does nothing, even if it had many occasions to step and it doesn't. So it's very ineffective. And then there are other times when the state says that a child's being abused when in fact they're not. So it's a very ineffective method, but it's the only option we have in a case where a child's being abused. But that again is about the child's rights. about the state's rights. All right, let's move on to headlines. Number one, this I thought was pretty remarkable just because it's rare that you get to hear someone who is so wrong in so many ways in the span of just a minute and a half. So this is really packing a lot of wrongness in to about

90 seconds. Governor Cuomo at a press conference was asked whether he's concerned that maybe the cure is worse than the disease when it comes to the coronavirus because the collapsing of the economy may take a toll, may exact a cost in human suffering that is worse than what would have happened had he not been locked down. That was the question, just paraphrasing it. And here was his response. The cure can't be worse than the illness itself. What is your response to them? The illness is death. What is worse than death? What if somebody commits suicide because they can't pay their bills? Yeah, but the illnesses may be my death. As a opposed to your death.

You said, they said, the cure is worse than the illness. The illness is death. How can the cure be worse than the illness if the illness is potential death? But what if the economy failing? Worse than death. Very true. Because of mental illness, the people stuck at home. No, it doesn't.

it doesn't equal death. Economic hardship. Yes, very bad. Not death. Emotional stress from being locked in a house. Very bad. Not death. Domestic violence on the increase.

Very bad. Not death. And not death of someone else. See, that's what we have to factor into this equation. Yeah, it's your life, do whatever you want. But you're now responsible for my life. You have a responsibility to me. It's not just about you.

You have responsibility to me. Okay, so many, so many problems here. Where to even begin? First of all, the illness is not death. The illness does not equal death. He kept saying that, the illness is death. No, it's not. The illness is an illness. It doesn't equal death. The illness could lead to death, but for the illness to equal death, the mortality rate would have to be

100%. It is not. As it happens, the mortality rate is significantly under 100%. It's probably under 1%. It could be higher, but it could potentially be much lower. We don't exactly know. So we, but we do know that around 99% of people who can contract the virus survive. And that's relevant because we're not talking about a death sentence. The illness does not equal death, despite what Governor Cuomo says there. Second, he says that nothing could be worse than death. Well, that's just not true. I mean, that's true.

If you believe that literally the only point of life is self-preservation, which would mean the only point of life is just to continue living, to continue breathing for as long as possible, which means that the point of life is that effectively it has no point. If the only point of life is just to keep living for its own sake, then it has no fundamental point whatsoever. It's just this self-perpetuating thing and there's no reason for it to perpetuate other than the fact that it perpetuates. So, no, it's to pretend that there could be, couldn't possibly be anything worse than death is obviously absurd and not true. And, you know, also we talked about this on the backstage last night, if you were watching.

We can't pretend that quality of life doesn't matter. Liberty doesn't matter. I mean, these things matter. So this idea that we could destroy the quality of life for millions of people, cause them great suffering, we could take away their rights and liberties. and we can do all that, and it's okay to do that if we save even one person. As long as those measures don't themselves directly kill people, and as a result, some other people do live,

then automatically it's justified. Well, that's just not true. And of course, we also know that these measures are killing people. We talked yesterday about the UN is warning 150 million people globally are going to be on the brink of starvation because of these lockdowns and the recession and the disruption of the supply chain and everything else. So these measures are killing people, probably a lot more people than the coronavirus would kill. But even aside from that, it's just not true.

Well, if you could save, if removing liberty from millions of people, destroying their livelihood, taking their businesses away, their jobs away and everything, if it saves one person, it's automatically worth it, no, wrong, it's not. Third, he says, amazingly says that domestic violence and economic hardship don't lead to death. I was waiting for him to say that suicide doesn't lead to death either. This is just obviously absurd, and I don't think I need to explain why. Fourth, he says that going back to work is selfish because it's not just about you. Okay, well, what about locking down the economy to protect certain populations of people, thereby causing other people to lose everything and end up destitute?

Couldn't the person who is losing everything say to the people who, you know, the people we've locked down to protect, couldn't that person say, It's not just about you. It's also about me. So couldn't this logic work the other way as well? This is simply a remarkable, almost machine gun rapid fire delivery of falsehoods and fallacies from Cuomo. Number two, on the theme of Democrats saying insane things on video, here is this. There's a lot that we could be doing right now.

But ultimately, I think when we talk about this idea of reopening, society, you know, only in America does the president, when the president tweets about liberation, does he mean go back to work? When we, you know, have this discussion about going back or reopening, I think a lot of people should just say, no, we're not going back to that. We're not going back to working 70-hour weeks just so that we could put food on the table and not even feel any sort of semblance of security in our lives. So the Congresswoman, who is still working and getting paid, says that low-wage workers shouldn't go back to work.

It must be nice to have that kind of privilege, where you can sit back, pontificating about economic theories and so on, suggesting that workers shouldn't go back to work. It's very easy if you're in Alexandria Ocasio-Coltez's position, isn't it? This is like somebody moving along the line at a buffet, you know, filling his plate with chicken wings and macaroni and cheese talking about the power of a hunger strike, saying that people should really go on a hunger strike over this.

Yeah, it's very easy to say. By the way, working for a living, earning an income, that is liberating. There is dignity in that. There are a lot of people who want to work for a living. I know that might be shocking to somebody like Alexandria-Ca-Ca-Cortez, but there are people who want to do that.

who would, there are people who would much prefer to work for a living than to be handed money from the government. It's amazing to me all these people that say, well, it's okay, you could take away someone's livelihood, their job, their business, whatever, because the government's giving them checks anyway. Well, first of all, there are a lot of people who need the checks who aren't getting them, and many of the people who are getting the checks, it's not nearly enough. $1,200 isn't enough to subsidize the lives of, you know, of entire families. for weeks on end. It's not even close to enough. But even if it was enough, it tells me something about you. If you think that that's an even trade, you know, take, for example, a man who's working and has a job, he's proud of his job, he's worked to get to the position that he is, he's honed his craft, and he's supporting his family. He's proud that he's supporting his family. And then you

come in and you take all that from him, and you hand them a check from the guy. government and you say, see, it's no harm, no foul. That just tells me something about you, that you don't understand why a man may much prefer to go to work and earn that money and bring it back to his family, defeat his kids, and support his family. If you don't understand that, that's, again, that just tells me something about your character. Number three, leftists are having a ball today, passing along, sharing, I've seen his photo all over the place, It's a photo from an anti-lockdown protest in Tennessee. So take a look at it here.

As you can see, somebody had a protest holding a sign that says, Sacrifice the Week. And people are sharing this and saying, you see these anti-lockdown people that are a bunch of murderous, nihilistic, suicidal lunatics. This proves it. This proves my point. And the media, of course, has put this photo front and center in their articles about

all the lockdown protests. they take this photo, and of course, this photo now is representative of the entire movement. The people taking this sign at face value, I'm not sure exactly what the most charitable interpretation of them is, because either they are extremely, extremely stupid, and they really think that this is a genuine protester who really feels this way, or they know better, but they're pretending, and then they're liars. So I'm not sure. Either they're extremely dumb or they're liars, or maybe a combination of the two.

Obviously, obviously, this is a troll who made that sign to parody and discredit the movement, which is not some crazy conspiracy theory. It doesn't require a conspiracy. It just requires one dude to make a sign and go hold it on the sidewalk. Okay? That's it. And it's very clear that this is not someone who is actually a friend of the anti-lockdown position. Pretty good rule of thumb here. If you see somebody at a protest holding a sign that happens

coincidentally, conveniently to helpfully vindicate the most absurd caricature of the movement that is, that is, you know, presented by the other side, well, that's a very good indication that the person doesn't actually support the movement. You know, if you're looking at pictures of a protest and you, it's a protest that you disagree with. And you see one sign that just happens to fit right in to your cartoonish view of this movement. You disagree with. Well, if you're a person of intellectual integrity, you're going to stop for a minute and say, I don't know, this is a little bit too good to be true.

And we know that this is something people are doing. You remember that fake flyer for a fake rally in New York telling sick people to come out. That was totally fake. It was not something. was not a rally that wasn't even a real rally at all. Nobody showed up to it. So we know that people are doing this. And it's pretty clear to me this is an example. Now, of course, look, there's a, there's like a 1% chance, I suppose, that that is a, that's a genuine protester who's insane. So that could be a real crazy person. But it's like a 1% chance, 99% chance or more,

that that, of course, is just a troll. Another dead giveaway, if the sign itself is not a giveaway? The fact that he's wearing a disguise. He's wearing a mask and sunglasses. He doesn't want to be seen on camera. You notice a lot of the other protesters aren't wearing masks. That's one of the complaints that the anti-protest people have, is that these guys are showing up at the rallies not wearing masks. The one guy who comes with a mask, also sunglasses, happens to be holding this crazy sign. What does that tell you? Now, if you're wondering why people are actually protesting, here's a report from the local ABC affiliate. And I think this gives us a better view of it. Watch this.

The signs say it all. These Tennesseans want Governor Lee to open up the state, especially small businesses, now. Greg and Zeta Sorrell have both been out of work for several weeks because of COVID-19 restrictions. I'm brave enough to go to work and I'm brave enough to, you know, be near my fellow humans. and I hate that we have to see each other as a disease now. I appreciate people who want to, you know, quarantine and who can afford to do it. And, you know, who can make that sacrifice and do that. That's great. I appreciate it.

I think you're free to do it. I should be free to not do it. Adrian Hitch owns a hair salon in Hendersonville. She says the state hasn't helped her with unemployment and she didn't get a small business administration loan before the funding ran out. We have no problem being shut down, but we have. We can't afford to stay shut down if we don't have some kind of an income coming in. State Representative Bruce Griffey recently sent a letter to Governor Lee, urging him to open the economy immediately. He says we'll face dire consequences if that doesn't happen.

He also says it's not fair that big box stores like Lowe's and the Home Depot get to stay open while so many small businesses had to close. I just don't think it's fair for the government to put winners and lose on this unless you've got a real good firm basis of why I'm supposed to. specific business should not operate. Many of the people at today's rally weren't wearing face masks or socially distancing from others. Okay, now, did those people seem like suicidal nihilist to you? This is the same protest that the guy with the Sacrifice the Week sign was at. But what do you think? The people that were interviewed, no, they seem like perfectly reasonable individuals.

Even saying, they're saying, look, I think it's great to quarantine if you want to do that. I'm not saying you shouldn't. But I need to work to feed my family. That's it. That's a reasonable position. And that's how most anti-lockdown people feel. None of them are saying sacrifice the week. Because that's the cartoon of the movement that people on the other side have drawn.

Number four, speaking of why people are protesting, the new jobless numbers are in. About four and a half million additional people applied for unemployment last week. That brings our total to almost 27 million. And as I, it always reminds you, that's just. the tip of the iceberg, doesn't count many millions of other unemployed people. But now we're at 27 million. By next week, it's going to be 30 million. More than 30 million. We're looking at, in fact, right now it's probably more than 30 million. But the numbers don't come out until a week later. Number five, here's a refreshing change of pace. Rather than, you know, rather than

talking about the coronavirus, let's talk about a different disease. Change it up a little bit. Chipotle has agreed to pay a $25 million fine, which apparently is a record because it served tainted food that sickened over a thousand people. But the fun thing is, like I said, this is not the coronavirus. This was actually, well, it was various things, E. coli, food poisoning, a lot of intestinal type stuff. So we're giving the lungs

a break and we're moving on to a disease lower down in the body. You know, honestly, I don't blame Chipotle for this. This is on the customers. Because, and most people, I thought, knew this, when you go to Chipotle, and I love Chipotle, and I'll keep going to Chipotle.

But you have to tell them to hold the E. coli. Because otherwise, how are they supposed to know you don't want it? So I always say, you know, let me get the burrito, pinto beans, chicken, hot sauce, you know, hot salsa, guac, corn, cheese, lettuce, no sour cream because putting a dairy product on a burrito is disgusting. Who does that? Well, cheese is a dairy product, but, you know, that doesn't count. But then you have to say, no E. coli, please, hold the E. coli. Now, on occasion, I'll say, could you just sprinkle a dash of food poisoning? little bit, not too much. But generally, I tell them to hold it, and you have to be able to do that. All right, let's go to your daily cancellation. I've been trying to put off playing this video

because it's so disturbing and grotesque. But we just talked about food poisoning, so I think it kind of works. There's a natural transition here. If you haven't seen this video, I have to warn you, and I mean this sincerely, it's a serious thing, not trying to be funny. But this is, this video. it may be the most disturbing and grotesque thing that I have ever seen on the internet, which of course is saying quite a lot. So if you have kids with you right now as you're watching this, then I would say maybe wait till they're in bed later, come back and watch it. Probably not appropriate for them.

But here it is. We need mayonnaise, we need cheese, and we need good old-fashioned tuna. Let's get out, all right? First of all, two pieces of bread. Put them out. on the plate, open up the mayonnaise. I love meo. I know my kids hate meo, but make sure you get plenty on both sides. Next comes the important part, the tuna. My personal preference is chicken to the sea. You've got to make sure you distribute this evenly across the bread in a way that's even and appropriate. Again, If you're having trouble keeping up, you can pause because the placement of the tune is very important.

Next, your favorite cheese. For me, medium cheddar. And I'm a two-slice man. Put this on the other side of the bread. Put it in. You need a heating device. I'm going with the MVP-5. And one of my old favorites.

Usually about 30 seconds. Shocking. Disturbing. Grotesque. That was Senator Mark Warner of Virginia, I believe, giving a tutorial on how to make a tuna melt. But instead of showing us how to make a tuna melt, he really showed us how to commit a crime against humanity. I don't even know where to begin here. First of all, what sort of demented psycho lunatic dumps the tuna right on the bread without mixing it first? Not only of that, but he doesn't even drain it. So the tuna is leaked, the tuna water is leased. The tuna water is

all over the bread, making it soggy, and then he puts about 47 tablespoons of mayo all over the bread so that there's more mayo than tuna. And then he puts the whole damn thing, mayo bread tuna, in the microwave for 30 seconds. And remember, the mayo is not mixed with the tuna. So it's going to be, it's going to come out scalding. Think about mayo for 30 seconds in the microwave? That's a long time. I mean, mayo for any amount of time in the microwave is too much. But 30 seconds, it's going to come out scalding hot. You have this scalding hot magma-like mayo dripping all over pungent hot tuna encased in soggy, warm tuna water-soaked bread and dripping with cheese. My God in heaven, deliver us from evil.

In Jesus' name, have mercy. And just think, this man was elected to political office. He is a deranged nihilist who likes to eat soft. foggy warm fish flavored bread. And yet somehow this maniac was elected a United States senator, which just goes to show. And I've been saying this for years. You know I've been saying this. I've said it so many times.

One of the first questions that they should ask at a debate is the first question they should pose to candidates is how do you prepare your tuna sandwiches? Because you could tell so much about someone based on that. And I also recommend on a first date, that should be your first question as well. So Mark Warner is canceled. Now, we're going to move on. We're going to do a couple emails. But before we do, you know, we've been telling you about this double Tumblr promo.

And if you haven't had a chance yet, you've got to become a Daily Wire Insider Plus or All Access member because when you do, you get not one but two of the magnificent, glorious, beautiful, awe-inspiring, life-changing tumblers. And not only that, but you get many other benefits as well. You get an ad-free website experience, access to our all, to our live broadcast, show library, the full three hours of the Ben Shapiro show, access to the mailbag. And now exclusive election insight op-eds as well from Ben Shapiro. Daily Wire members also get to ask us questions during backstage, which we, as I said, we had one last night. And you get to participate in our new All-Axcess Live Hangout shows, which are a lot of fun as well.

So again, that's two leftist-teers tumblers, not just one, but two, when you become a Daily Wire Insider Plus or all access member, and you get 10% off with coupon code Walsh. Just head on over to dailywire.com slash subscribe. Okay, let's see. This is from Justin says, Hi, Matt, I disagree with your previous assertions regarding personality tests, particularly the Myers-Briggs. I have taken this test many times over the course of almost a decade

and have gotten the same result every time. You argued that these tests are merely a reflection of the kind of person you wish you were, not who you actually are, while aspirational personality traits may influence some people when taking the test, many people take the test honestly to get deeper insights into just what their personality is, but also why they are the way they are. I wish I was more extroverted and less moody, but I still get classified as an introvert with an inclination for feeling overthinking every time. The various descriptions and explanations of my personality type have also been consistently accurate,

not just to me, but others who know me. This includes both positives and negatives of my personality type. Okay, well, but this, Justin, it just, this just raises a question. No, I still think that the problem with personality tests is that in many cases, people are putting in, now you may be very honest about it, but I think you're probably an exception. I think most people put in the personality traits that they wish they exhibited.

Part of that is a lack of self-awareness. So they don't do it on purpose. But to take a personality test, honestly, here's the issue. To take a personality test and get an accurate result requires self-awareness. okay but if you have self-awareness then you already know you're aware of yourself you already know what kind of personality you have

so what's the point of the test you said you're taking it multiple times and you get the same result why do you keep taking the test you obviously know who you are so I don't understand why do you want to take a test so that the test can tell you what sort of person you are when you already know it either you don't already know what kind of person you are so you lack self-awareness so the test isn't going to work

because you're not going to be answering the questions honestly or at least accurately or you do have self-awareness, so you already know what's the point? I just, I don't get it. Just look in a mirror. It just seems a lot more efficient if you want to know what you're all about. This is from Jennifer. I sent you this comment several months ago and feel I must now give you personal anecdotes

of weird homeschool kids. Example one, there was a guy who I went to college with who was homeschooled through middle school. His hair was unkempt and he would sit on top of the first. in the union to do his homework. Is this normal? No. You may think this is cruel, but he dressed like he was raised in a barn. No sense of style whatsoever. Example two, there was another guy who I also went to college with who was homeschooled through middle school as well. He often made inappropriate penis jokes that apparently were super funny to his brother at home, but certainly were not in a co-ed environment. Oh yeah, because you never, kids in public school will never make jokes like

that. It's not like every single bathroom stall you walk into it at public school is decorated with pictures of Gentile. That's the thing only homeschoolers would do. She goes on, these two were homeschooled and were the weirdest people I met in college. I guarantee they would have acted more socially acceptable had they gone to public slash private school. I have more examples, but I think these are sufficient for now. I guarantee there are many other who have similar stories. You may disagree, but there's a stereotype for a reason. Well, Jennifer, I assume you were not homeschooled because of your view of homeschoolers. So this just tells me, really, I mean, it just tells me something about you and maybe about

public schoolers, especially because it's amazing to me. I think I've used that phrase about five times during the show. It's amazing to me. I'm amazed far too often. When, in fact, actually, none of the things I've said are amazing actually amaze me. So I should probably, anyway, this argument, it's not even an argument. But anytime we talk about homeschooling or I've talked about homeschooling, this is the number one response that I hear is people giving anecdotes about we quote unquote weird

homeschoolers they know so a few problems with that number one the first guy you mentioned okay so you didn't like his his his his style you don't like the kind of clothes he wore and he didn't like where where he sat when he did his homework well I would say that's that's that just reflects your own superficiality um If you don't like the way someone dresses and you judge them based on that. Now, if you want me to admit, are homeschoolers less likely to be caught up on all the latest fashions? I would say, probably. Okay, it's also not the year 1842.

I mean, homeschoolers are still going to be plugged in in a literal sense to the culture. And they're out, they have friends, they're out and, you know, they're not, it's not like the village, the M-night Shamelon movie where we're in some village in the woods and we're pretending it's 1842. No, in most cases, they're out in society. They have friends. They know what people are wearing and dressing and how they're talking and everything else. But are they, because they're not immersed in that culture, are they a little bit less likely to be up on the fads? Yeah.

But so what? If that's the kind of weird you're talking about, that's good. To have a kid who doesn't care as much about being caught up on trends. What's the advantage of being caught up on trends? Does it make you a better person? Does it make you a more interesting person? Does it make you a more interesting person? Does it make you a better person? Doesn't make you a better interesting person? Doesn't make you a better adjusted person? It's not a reflection of your character. So who cares? The fact that you care just tells me that you're superficial, which is not a good reflection in public school. But of course, the other problem is that anecdotes don't prove any. And for every anecdote you can give me of a quote unquote weird homeschooler, I can give you 10 anecdotes of weird public schoolers. So we could go back and forth with anecdotes all day long. And you want to talk about weird?

You want to talk about weird? How about weird? How about all the school shooters that show up at public schools? Okay. Those are some pretty weird people, aren't they? You don't have that problem in homeschool, do you? So if you really want to get into the anecdotes, we can do that. But I don't think you want to play that game.

Because we can start with the school shooters and we can work our way down from there. I think, and here's the third thing. Most of the time when people talk about weird homeschoolers, what they really mean, and look, there are some legitimately genuinely weird homeschoolers, okay? Like weird in a negative sense. That does exist. I'll fully admit that. There are weird people in the world.

They exist. They're out there. Some of them are going to end up in homeschool. It's inevitable. Although I would argue there are a lot more of them in public school. But I think often when someone says homeschoolers are weird, what they really mean is that they're weird in the sense that they don't act like other kids act in our modern culture. And I would say that is weird in a very good way. I hope my kids are weird that way.

I don't want my kids acting like every other kid. Okay. I want my kids to be mature. to be able to hold a conversation, to not be dependent all the time on being glued to their phone and electronics and so on, to be able to talk about something other than video games and TV.

Okay, if that's what you mean by weird, and I think oftentimes that is what people mean by weird, great, awesome. That's one of the best arguments for homeschool so that my kids can be that kind of weirdo. It's also just kind of strange that so many parents seem to want their kids to be just like all the other kids. Why would that be your aspiration for your kid?

For your kid to act like every other moron out there. Is that really your aspirates? Is that really what you want for them? But thanks for the email, Jennifer. We will leave it there. Thanks for watching, everybody. 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 podcast, including the Benchapiro show, Michael Nulls Show, and the Andrew Claven 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 DeMico, 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. We'll get a whole lot of that and much more. See you there.