Ep. 543 - Why Biden's Nationwide Mask Mandate Idea Is Stupid, Arbitrary, and Illegal
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Joe Biden has proposed a nationwide mask mandate. This idea is very stupid on a number of levels, and we’ll dissect each of those levels today. Also Five Headlines including a wave of depression and suicide due in part to the coronavirus lockdowns, and the New York Post reports on something called “erotic weight gaining,” which is a thing now, apparently. Finally in our Daily Cancellation, I will cancel human rights. I’ll explain why.
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, Joe Biden has proposed a nationwide mask mandate.
This idea is very stupid on a number of levels, and we'll dissect each of those levels today.
Also, five headlines, including a wave of depression and suicide, due in part to the coronavirus lockdowns.
We'll discuss that.
And the New York Post reports on something called erotic weight gaining, which is a thing now, apparently.
And, of course, we have to talk about it.
Finally, in our daily cancellation, I will cancel human rights.
I have my reasons.
I'll explain them.
All of that on the way.
But we start here.
The newly formed Biden-Harris team has presented their first federal mandate proposal, a preview of things to come should this ticket win.
Democrats love nothing more than federal mandates.
Provided, of course, that they're the ones in charge of the federal government.
If they aren't, then naturally actions taken by the federal government are literally fascist, literally tyrannical, literally what literal Nazis would literally do.
In any case, their mandated proposal is a nationwide mask requirement.
Everyone in the country, all 330 million people.
Must wear masks outside all over the place.
So if you live in, like, North Dakota, with a population density of approximately half a person per 50 square miles, you must wear a mask to walk down the street.
That's the idea.
And here they are explaining their idea in more detail.
This is not about Democrat, Republican, or Independent.
It's about saving Americans' lives.
So let's institute a mask mandate nationwide, starting immediately, and We will save lives.
The estimates are we'll save over 40,000 lives in the next three months if that is done.
Let me turn it over to my colleague and running mate.
She has a few comments to make.
Thanks, Joe.
That's what real leadership looks like.
We just witnessed real leadership.
Which is Joe Biden said that as a nation, we should all be wearing a mask for the next three months because it will save lives.
And the thing about Joe that the American people know is that his role of leadership in our country has always been about doing what's best for the people of our country.
And it's also been about racism, right?
Isn't that what you said, Kamala?
It's about doing what's best, but also racism?
I mean, you definitely said the racism part.
He's racist.
You said that.
That was part of it.
Only just a few months ago, you said that.
Anyway, putting that aside somehow, they are saying three months, everyone wears a mask.
If you're a farmer in Nebraska, wear a mask while you milk your cows.
If you're hiking the Appalachian Trail through West Virginia, wear a mask.
Wouldn't want to infect a deer or, I don't know, a tree.
Now, there are a few issues here.
The first is a simple fact, rather perhaps irrelevant these days, that the federal government doesn't have the authority to require that 330 million people wear a certain article of clothing or a certain accessory.
I understand we're way past the point of worrying about silly little things like constitutional authority, but even so, I just want to note, for the record, the federal government doesn't have it in this case.
Second point.
The efficacy of masks is far from settled science, despite the way it's presented in the media.
The New England Journal of Medicine, for example, an article published in May, says this in part, and this again was in May, so not all that long ago, it says, we know that wearing a mask outside healthcare facilities offers little, if any, protection from infection.
Public health authorities define a significant exposure to COVID-19 as face-to-face contact within six feet with a patient with symptomatic COVID-19 that is sustained for at least a few minutes, and some say more than 10 minutes or even 30 minutes.
The chance of catching COVID-19 from a passing interaction in a public space is therefore minimal.
In many cases, the desire for widespread masking is a reflexive reaction to anxiety over the pandemic."
End quote.
And I think the other fact you have to take into account here is even if you succeed in getting everyone to wear masks, which you won't, but if you do, what you certainly will never succeed in doing is getting everyone to practice good mask hygiene.
The CDC says if you have a cloth mask, which most people do, and we've been told not to wear the surgical masks anyway to save them for healthcare providers, then you should be washing it in hot water in your washer or with bleach by hand after each use.
How many people are doing that?
I have no idea, but it ain't everyone, or even close to everyone, I'm sure of that.
So, by requiring everyone to wear masks, the reality is that a certain large preponderance of people will be walking around with dirty, germ- and spittle-soaked pieces of cloth affixed to their faces.
How healthy is that?
See, all of the studies on masks seem to assume that you're properly wearing a clean mask.
Well, what about a dirty one?
Which is what millions of Americans are wearing and will wear no matter what.
That's just the reality and our policies have to deal with and in reality.
Third point, and here's I think a basic argument or observation that those in support of these
mask measures cannot answer and haven't even really tried to answer.
If masks would save, whatever, 40,000 lives, or whatever probably arbitrary figure Biden gave us there, it would save that many, and it would save that many in three months, he says.
Then how many lives could we have saved if we'd had a nationwide mask mandate for the last 10 years or 20 or however long to protect against the flu and other illnesses?
Yes, COVID has a higher mortality rate than the flu, yes.
You can't deny, if masks could save thousands of lives from COVID, then they would also save thousands from the flu, wouldn't they?
And a life is a life, isn't it?
This is about saving lives, didn't you say?
So, why didn't anyone anywhere, ever, at any point, even mention the idea of a mask mandate to save lives during flu season?
Literally thousands could have been saved.
Why wasn't it ever suggested?
Why?
I mean, let's use some hard numbers to frame this.
Arbitrary, yes, but so is the 40,000 figure, I suspect.
So, let's say, just for the sake of argument, that a mask mandate over the last three years would have saved 40,000 lives from the flu, and another 10,000 from various other illnesses spread through coughing, sneezing, talking, etc.
So, let's say it's 50,000 lives, three years.
It seems like a very conservative estimate if Biden is telling us 40,000 can be saved in three months from COVID.
So again, let's just say it's 50,000 lives over three years.
If you're using the it's worth it to save one life argument for a mask mandate, would that three years of a mask mandate have been worth it to save a life?
In fact, 50,000 lives, let's say?
If it wouldn't be worth it, then why is it worth it now?
And if it would be worth it, then why didn't you ever suggest it?
And whatever your reason for not proposing a mask mandate before, and thus tacitly supporting the deaths of so many people by your logic, why don't you propose a permanent mask mandate going forward?
Whatever time period you suggest for the mask mandate, three months, six months, whatever it is, what happens when that period is up?
Let's say we have a mask mandate for six months, okay?
180 days.
What happens on day 181?
Are lives not worth saving anymore?
Save lives for 180 days, but not 181 days?
See, this doesn't make sense.
Now, I personally don't care that much if people want to wear masks or if individual stores want to choose to require it.
Their property, their business, their choice.
But a mask mandate, especially a federal mask mandate, is absurd, arbitrary, onerous, and almost certainly unconstitutional.
And that's the point.
Now, let's get to our five headlines.
You know, the last thing anybody wants to do right now is spend hours at an auto parts store.
Last thing anyone wants to do anytime is spend hours at an auto parts store, or frankly, any other kind of store.
It's so much easier to just go to rockauto.com.
You know, it's better to do that than to walk into the store, go through the whole rigmarole, answer all the questions, then they just go online, they order the part anyway.
You could have done that yourself.
Go to rockauto.com.
You've got it at your desk, you've got it in your pocket that you carry around your phone.
Rockauto.com always offers the lowest prices possible, rather than changing prices based on what the market will bear like airlines do.
Why spend twice as much for the same parts?
Why spend twice as much?
For a smaller selection is an even better question.
RockAuto.com is a family business serving auto parts customers online for 20 years.
Go to RockAuto.com to shop for auto and body parts from hundreds of manufacturers.
The RockAuto.com catalog is unique, very easy to navigate, and you can quickly see all the parts available for your car truck.
Go to RockAuto.com right now.
See all the parts available for your car, truck, right?
Walsh in there.
How did you hear about us, Bach, so that they know that we sent you?
Okay, number one, journalists today are celebrating another journalist who asked a question.
It's a little bit of scare quote overload here.
Basically, it's all bull crap is what I'm saying.
But he asked a question and is being hailed and celebrated for this question.
Listen to it here.
After three and a half years, do you regret at all, all the lying you've done to the American people?
All the what?
All the lying, all the dishonesties.
That who has done?
You have done.
Uh... Yeah, go ahead, please.
Please.
Go ahead.
I wanted to ask about the payroll tax.
So what we have here is what we've seen for, especially during the Trump, now it's been this way for decades really, but especially during the Trump era.
This is journalism as performance.
It's not journalism at all.
It's a performance.
He's performing for the camera.
What other point would there be to that question?
You're asking the President of the United States a question.
You're in a press conference.
This is supposed to be a service that you're providing for the people so that we can get answers and that sort of thing.
What kind of answer do you think you're going to get from that?
No, what he was hoping for.
In fact, this was just antagonism.
He was hoping for some kind of angry response from Trump, and then he could mix it up and try to embarrass Trump, and at the same time elevate himself.
Of course, that's what this is all about, but that's... You know, I didn't go to journalism school, admittedly, but I don't think that's what journalism is actually supposed to be.
Number two, David Blaine is back, the magician, performance artist, I guess is what we call him.
He's got a new stunt planned.
Big deal.
Hasn't done anything in 10 years, okay?
What has he cooked up for us now?
A decade later.
He's been working on this, we're told, for a decade.
What is it?
Well, what he's going to do is he's going to hold on to some balloons and float really high.
That's the plan.
Here's the preview.
This is a test.
All right.
I.
Doesn't it strike you as a bit egotistical to call this stunt the Ascension?
But, you know, the real problem is that a guy already did this.
Remember, there was that guy that tied balloons to his lawn chair and floated up to, like, Mars or something, I believe, if I remember correctly.
In fact, multiple people have done this.
They made a Pixar movie about this, in fact.
Which is based on a true story. So this is this just I to me this is disappointing 10 years
And this is what you come up with i'm gonna hold a balloon and float
Cool, I you know, I would love to do that too, but I just don't know if it quite is worth the hype
um number three reading from the daily wire says more than 25 of young americans aged 18 and 24 have
seriously considered killing themselves during the last month according to the
Morbidity and mortality weekly report released on thursday by the centers for disease control and prevention
Uh says the coronavirus disease 2019 Pandemic has been associated with mental health challenges
related to the morbidity and mortality caused by the disease and to mitigation
Activities including the impact of physical distancing and stay-at-home orders
Symptoms of anxiety disorder and depressive disorder increased considerably in the United States during April to June of 2020, compared with the same period in 2019.
Now, this is, many of us warned that this was going to happen.
You're not only taking away people's jobs and livelihood, you're isolating them, keeping them shut away from contact with other people.
And so, of course, you're going to have now, especially for someone who's already dealing with depression, dealing with anxiety, mental illness, whatever it is, shutting them away.
And on top of that, You're also bombarding them every single day with, uh, with, you're going to die.
It's a disaster.
It's the end of the world type of stuff.
So it's just, it's not surprising.
It's tragic and horrible.
It's not surprising that would have this effect.
Remember Trump brought this up months ago and again, the, our truth seeking truth, Uh, finding journalists in the media mocked him for it and fact checked him.
Trump brought up months ago that this is going to lead to suicide and depression.
And then we got all the fact check.
Oh, no, it isn't.
They said, well, here we are.
Although I do think we should also note it because it's important that, you know, and this is, this is one of the reasons why, um, the, The lockdowns and the effect on mental health has been so bad is because we already live in a culture that is very depressed and much more suicidal than at other points in history.
And it's a problem that goes down into very young ages.
So this is part of a cultural trend, a long-standing cultural trend.
Which isn't to downplay it, but precisely the opposite.
To say that we've got a serious problem, and even when we get past the lockdown insanity, there's still going to be this problem.
And we could talk about dissecting this, but one of the fundamental things feeding it is that we live in a culture that is, at its core, quite empty.
And people have no sense of purpose.
No sense of any greater reason for existence.
It's a very nihilistic culture and so that's what is going to lead in part to this as well.
Number four, Brett Favre speaking to USA Today shows us what courage truly looks like.
This is Brett Favre.
He says, And he was asked about the kneeling issue.
He says, I know from being in an NFL locker room for 20 years,
regardless of race, background, money you grew up with, we were all brothers, it didn't matter.
Guys got along great.
Will that be the same with the kneeling scenario?
I don't know.
If one guy chooses to stand for his cause, another guy chooses to kneel for his cause,
is one right and the other wrong?
I don't believe so.
We tend to be fixed on highs.
I don't know what it's like to be black.
It's not for me to say what's right and what's wrong.
I don't know, we should all be treated- I know we should- I do know we should all be treated equal.
If you can't do that, you shouldn't be in America.
There's no right answer.
Other than that, the right answer is that we all get along.
It seems like the more people try, the more damage is done.
This is, you know, yeah.
What a courageous answer from Brett Favre, but all these athletes are proving they may be physically tough, but when it comes to moral courage, there's a real deficiency there.
Your answer is, there's no right, there's no wrong.
Here's all I'll say, we should all get along.
I'll take a stand and say, we should be getting along.
Great insight from Brett Favre.
Number five, here's something that I just found out existed, proving the old adage that ignorance is bliss.
Erotic weight gaining is a thing, unfortunately.
The New York Post reports on the important story of a guy named Brian, nicknamed Gainer Bull, who has intentionally gained over 300 pounds.
He eats 10,000 calories a day.
One meal for him is like three combo meals, five or six sides.
Now has a stomach the size of a small asteroid.
And again, all of this is on purpose, some kind of like fetish.
And he apparently has legions of fans who watch him eat and just enjoy gazing upon his bulbous physique.
One fan on Instagram, for example, left a comment saying, By the way, the words inflating and handsome really don't go together.
But here's my point.
Do I have a point?
I think I do.
The point is that the internet should be destroyed.
It is a cancer.
It is a virus.
And this is part of the problem.
This guy, Brian, clearly mentally ill.
His fans, clearly mentally ill.
And mentally ill people have always existed.
Presumably fat fetishists have always existed in some capacity.
But now with the Internet, people like this are able to congregate.
They're able to form communities where they encourage each other in their perversion and their degeneracy.
And that's maybe the worst thing about the Internet.
And there's a lot of competition for that title.
But perhaps the worst thing is what it has done to the concept of community.
Because it used to be that your community Was the neighborhood where you live, or you form a community as a church, or around some other sort of solid, healthy thing.
Real world thing.
Now a community just becomes a collection of people who enjoy the same thing, and often the thing they enjoy is repulsive and self-destructive and bizarre.
So there's no edification, there's no growth.
Well, there is growth, just not emotional and spiritual growth is what I'm talking about.
There's nothing positive to come of the community other than this mutual encouragement to continue being weirdos.
And that's most of the community on the internet.
That's really what it is.
It's just a bunch of weirdos getting together and encouraging each other and telling each other that they're not really weirdos.
Someone has some freaky, gross thing they're into.
They can just Google it.
And boom, they find a whole collection of other lunatics just like them, whereas in the past, before the internet, you know, they would have hidden that part of themselves in shame, as they should, maybe seek counseling for it.
Either of those options are better than what we have now.
And it's because now you can, you know, it's certainly preferable to, or preferable to going on Instagram and getting your kicks by watching a morbidly obese man eat a burrito, which is what's where we are now.
And by the way, this cheapening of the idea of community, it doesn't just apply to this fetish type of stuff.
I mean, I think it applies even to, you know, people that say they're in a community because they all like the movie Star Wars or something like that.
Or, you know, communities of people that play video games.
There's nothing wrong with playing video games or liking Star Wars.
That's not really a community, though.
That's just, you enjoy the same thing, great.
That shouldn't be a community, because there's no shared value system there.
The only shared experience is just this recreational thing you like doing.
It's not really what a community is supposed to be.
And we, as humans, do need community.
But we're finding we are fulfilling that need in these kinds of communities, around some one little thing that we like.
Even if it's a perfectly fine thing, rather than fulfilling that need to a real, real life, you know, community.
Alright, let's go to our daily cancellation.
Today for our daily cancellation, I will be cancelling human rights.
No more human rights.
So you don't get human rights anymore, they're cancelled.
No, that's not exactly the point.
I'm not cancelling human rights per se, as much as I'm cancelling human rights as the foundation of our moral and political arguments, especially as conservatives.
I'm going to suggest that when we're making arguments, advocating our position, we should be grounding our argument in something other than this incessant appeal to human rights.
To sort of set things up here, I want to go back to Biden at that press conference yesterday, to something else that Biden said while pitching his plan to muzzle the country with masks.
I didn't play this earlier, but this was something else he said during that press conference that I thought was interesting.
Listen to this.
Today, I want to talk about one thing, very straightforward.
It doesn't have anything to do with Democrats, Republicans, or independents.
It has to do with a simple proposition.
Every single American should be wearing a mask when they're outside for the next three months at a minimum.
Every governor should mandate, every governor should mandate mandatory mask wearing.
The estimates by the experts are it will save over 40,000 lives in the next three months.
40,000 lives that people act responsibly.
And it's not about your rights, it's about your responsibilities as an American.
It's not about your rights, it's about your responsibility.
It's a rather extraordinary thing for a presidential candidate to say, especially one on the left.
Now, some on the right, some conservatives, are acting quite scandalized and outraged by this comment from Biden, but I'd like for us to, rather than putting our hands up against our foreheads and fainting like Victorian women over this comment, I'd like for us to stop and really think about what's being said here.
I obviously disagree with the mask mandate idea, and so I disagree that it's our responsibility to all wear masks all the time everywhere, but I appreciate the framing, and I think this is a good strategy by Biden to flip this rights thing around and focus on the other R word, which is responsibility.
And this is exactly what conservatives should be doing.
Not about masks, but in general.
In the battle of ideas, we should be making responsibility much more the foundation, the centerpiece of our political and moral arguments, rather than constantly going on about rights.
Because that's all it ever is now, is we're talking about our rights.
The problem with human rights is that it's an incredibly vague concept.
There's no agreed-upon definition of it.
And I suspect that the vast majority of people, even on the right, who talk about their rights, couldn't offer any definition, if you ask them.
At least not a coherent one.
Now, a conservative will tend to give a definition like this.
This is usually about the best you could hope for.
They'll say, rights are inalienable and endowed by the Creator.
Okay.
I agree.
I agree with the Founding Fathers on that, but that's not a definition.
That doesn't tell me what sorts of things actually are rights.
That's a description of the source of rights, not a definition of the term itself.
It's like if I asked you to define the word flower and you said, well, they're pretty and they grow out of the ground.
That's an accurate description, yes, but it's not a definition.
It doesn't tell me what a flower is.
It gives me part of the picture, but if that's all I know about flowers, then I'm liable to walk through a forest and think that everything I see is a flower.
A similar problem with human rights.
We, as a society, are walking through the proverbial forest and thinking everything we see is a human right.
I mean, we think that human rights literally grow on trees, it seems like.
Rights are inalienable and endowed by the Creator.
Okay, then is housing a right?
What about college?
If you say no, how do you know they aren't rights?
And don't tell me they aren't outlined in the Bill of Rights.
So what?
The Bill of Rights was never supposed to be a comprehensive list of every right that belongs to man.
Don't tell me the Creator hasn't endowed us with that right or, you know, a right to free housing or something like that.
How do you know?
Did you ask him?
Don't tell me it isn't in the Bible.
First of all, our laws aren't based on the Bible specifically because this isn't a theocracy.
Second, there's very little in the Bible that can be construed as an endorsement of, say, free speech rights or due process rights.
So, how do you know those are rights and some of the leftist right claims aren't valid?
What is a right?
This is the problem, and I firmly believe that all of the strife and disagreement in modern society springs at least partially from this dynamic, that we all are always and everywhere talking about our rights, yet almost none of us can give a coherent definition of the term.
And even if we can, it will be impossible to get even just a preponderance of people to agree with it.
What about responsibility?
Admittedly, you'll never get everyone to agree on what our responsibilities are or how to define the term, but I'm not suggesting that we can ever get universal agreement on anything.
What I'm suggesting is that the concept of human rights is especially obscure, and thus not a great foundation for an argument, a position, or even a philosophy.
Responsibility is a little better.
We can all define it.
A responsibility or duty is simply a moral or legal obligation.
According to Webster, it's an obligatory task, conduct, service, or function that arises from one's position.
Now, again, I'm not saying we've erased all ambiguity here.
I'm saying that we're on firmer and more definable ground than we were before with rights.
I think wherever possible, we should be making our case, arguing for a particular thing, By framing it in these terms.
Joe Biden says that arising from our position as Americans, we have a moral obligation to wear a mask to protect other people.
I don't agree.
But that's a strong argument, actually, and probably persuasive to a lot of people.
So let me give you an example of how this could work if conservatives were to use the same tactic.
Abortion.
Generally what we say is that an unborn child has a right to life, and I agree that the child does, but we run into this problem.
What is a right?
How do you know that he has a right to life?
What are you talking about?
Are you saying that the right to life is universal and immutable?
What about death row inmates?
What about someone who breaks into your home?
What about enemy combatants on the battlefield?
Do they have a right to life?
There are ways to meet these rejoinders, but you see how we're already lost in the weeds.
And, in fact, we have to admit that, well, no, your right to life is not, in fact, immutable.
You can, in effect, lose it or forfeit it, just like any other right can be lost or forfeit.
You don't have a Second Amendment right in prison, for example.
So, you see how opaque this has all become and how far away we are now from the point.
We are just lost out, way in the weeds out there.
What if we try a different approach?
The other R-word.
What if we argue, very simply, that a parent has a responsibility to their child?
Arising from their position as a parent, and from the special relationship between parent and child, a parent has a responsibility to provide for and care for their child, or to find someone else who can.
This is a lot more solid.
And everyone agrees with it, actually, to a large extent.
Everyone agrees that the parent of a five-year-old who leaves a child alone all weekend to go party should go to jail.
Why?
Because she has a responsibility to that child.
But why is it that she can't go to a party and leave her kid alone, but her neighbor Jim can?
See, if the child is left alone, the mother is arrested, not the neighbor Jim.
Why is that?
Well, because unless Jim was specifically hired to care for the child, he has almost no responsibility to the child.
The mother has almost all of the responsibility to the child.
We all agree on this.
I've never heard anyone advocate the revocation of child neglect and abuse laws.
So, all we're doing now as pro-lifers is making the rather logical and reasonable point That the parental responsibility we all agree with and see and acknowledge starts in the womb.
That's all.
And the really interesting thing is that the responsibility argument completely neutralizes the bodily autonomy argument from the left.
When you make the right to life argument, then it becomes a competition between the child's right to life and the mother's right to autonomy.
I suggest that we step out of that back and forth entirely and make this not about anyone's rights, A woman has a right to her body, sure, but she also has a responsibility to her child.
It's that simple.
Most debates can be framed this way, I would say.
Even gun rights can become gun responsibility.
It's not so much that I have a right to a gun for myself, but that I have a responsibility to protect my family and my community.
And I may need a gun to do that, especially these days.
I think that framing in these times in particular, is more persuasive.
And it goes in the other direction, okay?
You say you have a right to have your college debt paid for.
Okay, well, I don't have a responsibility to do that.
I don't have a responsibility to do that for you.
See, rather than making vague claims about your rights, what you really need to explain is why I have a responsibility to pay for your college.
That's going to be a much more difficult case to make.
We're so conditioned in this country to think always about our rights, talk about our rights, scream about our rights.
Rarely do we even think about responsibility, about duty, about what our obligations are as parents, as people, as Americans.
Aside from the ambiguity of human rights and all the problems I've already outlined, the other issue is that this obsessive focus on rights at the expense of responsibility has helped to turn us into a bunch of self-entitled whiny children only ever thinking about what we are owed and never about what we owe.
There's quite a lot of focus on what other people owe, especially what other people owe us, certainly.
Those rich people, those privileged, etc., and so forth, they owe us so much.
They owe.
They owe.
What about you?
What do you owe?
What are your duties?
What are you obliged to do?
And this is how we should think, and how we should encourage others to think, and how we should present our arguments.
And so, for now, human rights are cancelled.
At least we have to stop talking about them.
Talk about responsibility instead.
That's going to do it for this week, everybody.
Have a great weekend.
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.
If you prefer facts over feelings, aren't offended by the brutal truth, and you can still laugh at the insanity filling our national news cycle, well, tune in to The Ben Shapiro Show, where you'll get a whole lot of that and much more.
