Ep. 597 - Dems Pretend They Didn't Just Spend Four Years Calling Trump An Illegitimate President
Today on the Matt Walsh Show, the media panics over Trump questioning the integrity of the election, but the media itself has been questioning the integrity of his election for the past four years. Also we’re examining the fraud claims. Is there good reason to suspect fraud? And if so, what should be done about it? Plus, Democrats fight amongst themselves over whether socialism and leftist extremism is the future of their party. And in our Daily Cancellation, we’ll discuss the radical sex ed mandate just approved by the voters of Washington state.
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, the media panics over Trump questioning the integrity of the election, but the media itself has been questioning the integrity of his election for the past four years.
So, what do we think about that?
Also, we're going to examine the fraud claims that are being made.
Is there a good reason to suspect fraud?
And if so, what should be done about it?
Plus, Democrats fight amongst themselves over whether socialism and leftist extremism is the future of their party.
And in our daily cancellation, we'll discuss the radical sex ed mandate that was just approved by the voters of Washington state.
All of that coming up.
First, a word from LifeLock.
You know, unfortunately, we have to tell you news of yet another cyber attack.
This time, the victim is Barnes & Noble.
The breach potentially exposed customer data, including email addresses, billing and shipping numbers, telephone numbers, transaction histories, all of that.
The attack also impacted the Nook e-book services.
Some customers have been unable to access their Nook libraries Their previous purchases have disappeared and others were
unable to log into the the firm's online platform This type of stuff happens all the time and it's important
to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives every day
We put our information at risk on the internet. We could miss certain identity threats just by monitoring our credit
Or you know taking little steps like that. That's why it's good
There's life lock life lock that helps detect a wide range of identity threats
Like your social security number being for sale on the dark web if they detect your information has been potentially
compromised They're gonna send you an alert. They'll help you sort it
out Nobody can prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses, but LifeLock can see threats that you might miss on your own.
So join now and save up to 25% off your first year.
Go to LifeLock.com slash Walsh.
That's LifeLock.com slash Walsh for 25% off.
All right.
So I want to sort through this and tell you what I'm sort of I suspect that you won't agree with everything I have to say.
That's okay.
It'd be weird if you agreed with me all the time.
I barely agree with myself all the time.
But we're all in a position where we have to pick our way through the weeds, through the misinformation, obfuscation, fake news, out-of-context news, all of that.
As we discussed yesterday, there's a crisis of trust in this country.
Ultimately, One way or another, we get much of our information about world events and political events and the election through the media.
But we can't trust the media.
We can't trust most politicians, government officials, so it makes it very hard to know what's real and what isn't.
It requires a lot of discernment on our part, a lot of clear thinking, a lot of intellectual honesty.
And that's how I'm trying to approach this, and I think how we should all try to approach it.
Now, President Trump gave a press conference last night.
The media went ballistic over it, calling it an attack on our democracy, the worst thing Trump has ever done since the last worst thing he's ever done.
Here's how that press conference began.
Listen.
Good evening.
I'd like to provide the American people with an update on our efforts to protect the integrity of our very important 2020 election.
If you count the legal votes, I easily win.
If you count the illegal votes, they can try to steal the election from us.
If you count the votes that came in late, we're looking at them very strongly.
But a lot of votes came in late.
As I said, the media reacted to that, the whole thing, the whole press conference, with typical dramatic flair.
Here, for just one example, this is Anderson Cooper, alleged news anchor, offering his quite objective analysis of what Trump had to say.
We have never seen, really, other than I don't think we've ever seen anything like this from a president of the United States.
And I think, as Jake said, it is sad and it is truly pathetic.
And of course, it is dangerous.
And of course, it will go to courts.
But you'll notice the president did not have any evidence presented at all.
Nothing.
No real actual evidence of any kind of fraud.
He talked about people putting up papers in windows.
He talked about things that he'd seen on the internet.
That is the president of the United States.
That is the most powerful person in the world.
And we see him like an obese turtle on his back, flailing in the hot sun, realizing his time is over.
But he just hasn't accepted it, and he wants to take everybody down with him, including this country.
An obese turtle.
I bet he was proud of that line.
Hilarious stuff.
Nice job, Anderson.
You know, I could say that you look like a cartoon seagull if I wanted to stoop to your level.
I would say that, but I don't want to stoop to your level, so I'm not going to say that.
And anyway, however you feel about Trump's rhetoric, his response, his fraud claims, all of that.
Even if you think it's reckless and dangerous and whatever else, you absolutely have no standing at all to condemn Trump, much less get all high and mighty about it, if you're a Democrat.
Because Democrats for four years accused Trump of being an illegitimate president.
They said it multiple times, many times, over and over and over again, relentlessly.
They accused him of conspiring with Russia to steal our election.
Was there any evidence of that?
No, none.
The most they could do is tell us that Russia was trolling on Facebook and posting memes.
That's the most evidence we ever were given.
And this was called rigging the election.
They said that Trump and Russia conspired to rig the election.
They then went on to claim that Trump's Supreme Court justices were illegitimate.
They've been saying that about Amy Coney Barrett.
After all of that, you are in simply no position to call Trump a turtle flailing at the sun.
Unless you want to call yourself the same.
Besides, anyway, the only turtle in politics is Mitch McConnell, and he's more of a ninja turtle.
The guy's a killer.
He just doesn't lose, Mitch McConnell.
By the way, Hillary Clinton in particular has been on TV for the past four years calling Trump an illegitimate president.
Those words exactly.
Here she is in 2019, three years after the election, still calling Trump an illegitimate president.
Listen.
I believe he knows he's an illegitimate president.
He knows.
He knows that there were a bunch of different reasons why the election turned out the way it did, and I take responsibility for those parts of it that I should, but Shane, it was like applying for a job.
And okay, now Trump is gonna say the same thing about Biden.
recommendation and losing to a corrupt human tornado.
And so I know that he knows that this wasn't on the level.
I don't know that we'll ever know everything that happened, but clearly we know a lot and
are learning more every day and history will probably sort it all out.
So of course he's obsessed with me.
And okay, now Trump is going to say the same thing about Biden.
And we're going to have to listen to the people who cheered Hillary Clinton react with feigned
shock and horror when Trump says the same thing Hillary Clinton said.
Speaking of which, here's something I'm wondering.
I wonder, throughout the past four years of leftists calling Trump illegitimate, calling his Supreme Court picks illegitimate, advancing baseless claims of stolen elections and election rigging and voter suppression, has any leftist at any point anywhere ever Been flagged, censored, or suspended by Twitter, Facebook, any other big tech company?
Has there been even one example, one among the millions of cases of this?
Have any of them been punished by Twitter, Facebook, any of the rest?
No, of course not.
Meanwhile, nearly everything Trump is currently tweeting is censored by Twitter.
Are Trump's fraud claims different from Hillary's because his are true?
Well, I don't know.
This goes back to the crisis of trust.
What I can say is that I don't believe every fraud claim I see on social media.
You shouldn't either.
I also don't think there's some coordinated overarching conspiracy capable of simply fabricating millions of votes out of thin air.
If there was, Trump wouldn't have won in 2016.
And it wouldn't be so close this year.
The Democrats wouldn't have gotten decimated in the House.
Also, coordinated overarching conspiracies just aren't how things work in real life.
It's also not how voter fraud works.
Voter fraud is real and it happens, but it's usually on a small scale and it's disjointed.
So, to me, the issue isn't conspiracy.
And it has little to do with poll workers and, you know, the videos that are coming out, grainy videos.
That's not the point.
I don't think that should be our focus.
Here is the point, in my view.
I could be wrong, but this is the way that I see it.
Mail-in ballots.
An unprecedented number of mail-in ballots.
Democrats changed the rules at the last minute to get as many mail-in ballots as they could.
This was done solely, only, 100% to get rid of Trump.
They knew the mail-in ballots would work in their favor.
This was not about voter participation for the sake of participation.
It was about getting, for the Democrats, the right kind of voters to participate.
You saw how many people showed up for Trump on Election Day.
Huge turnout.
They knew it would go that way, so they changed the rules in order to involve more of their own voters.
This was all done, quote, legally, as in the courts approved it, so you can't overturn the results on that basis, but you can make sure that it doesn't happen again, and you can forbid mass mail-in voting in the future.
If we allow it to continue, I'll tell you, a Republican's never gonna be president ever again, period.
That isn't the problem with mail-in voting.
It's not that the problem is that it doesn't elect Republicans.
It's that it's highly susceptible to mistakes, errors, and outright fraud.
And we've seen all of that.
It also makes it harder to know if the votes were cast within the deadline.
This is all by design.
So the whole mail-in system is faulty and should be abolished entirely, with the exception of the military, who can still mail in their ballots.
Does that mean that there's no basis to challenge anything or, you know, to go to court over this?
No, not at all.
As I said, unprecedented amounts of mail-in ballots, razor-thin margins, one of the closest elections ever in history.
This is reason enough to go to do recounts, to do audits.
Even without any notion of fraud, this is reason enough right here.
This was a new system, a clunky system, not well managed, and we need to make sure it worked.
Again, I would be saying this even if there were no claims on social media of any fraud at all.
But the fact is, we do have indications of potential fraud or irregularities or whatever you want to call it.
In Pennsylvania, they allowed ballots that were not postmarked or clearly postmarked to be counted even if they weren't received until three days after the election had concluded.
That's a huge problem.
We need to make sure that all of those ballots were mailed on time.
If they weren't, they have to be tossed.
Any ballot that can't be 100% confirmed as having been sent on time must be tossed.
If that means we toss thousands of ballots, so be it.
Our election's integrity is at stake.
And in other states, too, there have been huge amounts of late ballots.
We need to make sure they were filed on time.
We need to make sure that they were filed and filled out legitimately.
We need to make sure people weren't voting by mail and then in person and that kind of thing.
This is all perfectly valid grounds for litigation.
Take it to court.
And listen, if there's no solid evidence of fraud, that'll come out in court.
The Trump team, they can't go to court with tweets and 12-second video clips.
They have to produce the goods, right?
Show the receipts.
If you think they have no goods to produce, well, then you shouldn't be worried about the courts.
All the more reason to advocate for getting the courts involved.
So, that's the only way to do this.
All of the legal ballots should be counted.
We have to make sure they're legal.
Any ballots that were filed late have to be tossed out.
We need to make sure everything was done correctly.
We have never had an election play out like this.
That's not an exaggeration.
It's never... When you look at the number of people, the number of ballots, mass mail-in voting, taking days to count them all, it has never worked like this before.
This is a whole new thing.
And if it went like this and it was an absolute landslide in one direction or another, then I think we'd have reason to say, well, you know, we're not going to recount.
It's pretty clear.
But that's not what happened.
Razor-thin tight margins.
And so you got to go back, do some recounts, do the audits, litigate it, take it to the courts.
If the Trump campaign has evidence of voter fraud, let them present it in a court.
If you are against them presenting their case in court, then that only tells me you're scared of the case they might present.
If you think it's utterly baseless, then alright.
Then you know what's going to happen?
The Trump team will be embarrassed in court.
And if you don't like Trump, you should embrace that opportunity.
So that's the way this should go.
Let's get now to our five headlines.
And in fact, later on in the show, we're going to talk about some of the more issues that you run into with public schools and government run schools.
So I'm a big, big advocate of homeschooling.
And there are a lot, I talk to parents all the time.
who do homeschool or want to homeschool, especially now as more and more parents are exploring it.
Record numbers of parents exploring homeschooling.
And that's why I'm excited to tell you about Homeschool Magnet.
Parents who homeschool or want to homeschool, if you're overwhelmed with all of the work and responsibilities on your shoulders right now, and, you know, all homeschool parents feel overwhelmed, and for parents with kids in school, if you've, you know, avoided the need to pull your student out of the public school system because it just seems too daunting to homeschool, Well then, this is what you need to hear about Homeschool Magnet.
It's for parents just like you.
Homeschool Magnet supports homeschooling families by providing students with instruction from world-class credentialed teachers in a remote classroom with their peers.
Parents choose the best teachers for each student based on, you know, the values and the teaching approach to ensure every child is receiving exactly the education that they desire.
So that means, that's really important, you don't get this in a government-run education.
Facility.
You don't have that kind of control over it.
Whatever the school system wants, that's what's going to be taught.
Here you have all the control you want.
What kind of education do you want your child to receive?
Not every parent wants their child to receive the same kind of education.
And not every child should receive the same kind of education.
So Taylor made for your students, each student will receive instruction in the four core subject areas of math, English language, arts, science, and social studies.
Parents ultimately have the freedom to involve their student in as much or as little learning
as they prefer based on each student's learning goals.
Magnet includes a robust online learning environment.
Each student works from real physical learning materials guided by video instruction from
their teacher, so it's kind of the best of both worlds.
With Homeschool Magnet, you get the freedom and control of homeschooling without the burden.
Just makes it a lot easier.
It takes a lot of the pressure off of you.
To learn more about Homeschool Magnet's student experience, go to homeschoolmagnet.com and
join the growing weightless.
For interested teachers, if you're a teacher as well and you want to be involved in this, who want more freedom in your teaching career, Homeschool Magnet may be perfect for you.
They're recruiting new teachers right now, so visit homeschoolmagnet.com to learn more and apply.
Okay, five headlines.
Actually, I lied, it's not five headlines.
I've been sort of playing fast and loose with the format this week because it's a weird week in many ways.
So this is one story, and it is the Democrat Party trying to deal with and understand why they didn't have the landslide they expected.
A few Democrats, here's the update here, a few Democrats have actually come out and given some valuable insight into this question.
And and they've been predictably ripped to shreds because of it most notably Claire McCaskill on MSNBC Talking about this subject and here she gives I think this is the smartest analysis That has ever been offered by any Democrat on cable news perhaps and here it is right here listen It's hard to pinpoint.
I think it began around cultural issues.
The Republican Party, I think, very adroitly adopted cultural issues as part of their main theme.
Whether you're talking guns, or issues surrounding the right to abortion in this country, or things like gay marriage and the right for transsexuals and other people who we as a party have tried to quote-unquote look after and make sure that they're treated fairly.
As we, you know, circled those issues, we left some voters behind and Republicans dove in with a vengeance and grabbed those voters.
And you've seen this shift.
You saw it in the South.
I've seen it in the rural areas of my state.
So we've got to get back to the meat and potatoes issues.
We've got to get back to the issues where we are taking care of their families.
And we also need to quit acting like we're smarter than everybody else, because we're not.
Similar thoughts were expressed by Representative Abigail Spanberger in a conference call with the House Democratic Caucus, the contents of which were leaked on social media.
And here's what she said reportedly in the conference call.
She said, the number one concern that people brought to me was defunding the police.
And I heard from colleagues who said, oh, it's the language of the streets.
We should respect that.
We're in Congress.
We're professionals.
We're supposed to talk about things in a way where we mean what we're talking about.
If we don't mean that we should defund police, we shouldn't say that.
And we need to not ever use the word socialist or socialism ever again, because while people think it doesn't matter, it does matter, and we lost good members because of that.
And if we are classifying Tuesday as a success from a congressional standpoint, we will get effing torn apart in 2022.
That's what she said.
Part of what she said.
The squad, of course, has stepped up valiantly to stand against these bursts of sanity, making it clear that no sanity will be allowed in the Democrat Party at all.
In fact, Claire McCaskill's already come out and apologized for daring to be rational and reasonable.
She's already had to come out and apologize.
I'm so sorry about that.
I'm so sorry for being reasonable.
It'll never happen again, I promise you.
It's only happened once in my life that it'll be a one-time deal, I promise.
It will never happen again.
So this message is not going to be embraced, especially by the squad and that ilk.
But this is of course exactly right.
And we've already talked about some of the reasons why it's right.
But here's maybe the primary thing that it comes down to.
You have to appeal to families.
If you want to be a valid political party, and you want to have success, especially down the ballot, you have to appeal to families.
Look at President Trump.
His strongest demo in 2020, according to exit polling data so far, was married women.
And I don't think anyone was predicting that.
He didn't do as well with unmarried women, but he did well with married women.
That was his strongest demo.
Why is that?
Well, married women.
They are carrying the burdens and the concerns of their families, and they're bringing those to the ballot box, and you have to speak to that.
If you're not speaking to families, you're done.
You're toast.
And defund the police.
Now, Spanberger, exactly right.
Defund the police may be the most suicidal political slogan that's ever been adopted by a major political party.
And the Democrat Party did adopt it.
They full-on adopted it.
Most mainstream Democrats were going around saying it, and the rest who didn't say it at least didn't stand up, most of them, against it.
Defund the police?
No, I don't care what race you are.
It doesn't matter.
No family wants the police defunded in their community.
That's not the priority of a family, of someone who has kids.
And all the rest of this that we get from the Democrat Party, they're not focused on the things that families care about.
In fact, often it's quite the opposite.
They're talking about tearing down the family, undermining the nuclear family.
They treat the family as a patriarchal, archaic institution.
As I've been talking about all week, that kind of stuff, very appealing to people on college campuses, very appealing to some media pundits, very appealing to Antifa radicals marching in the street.
Presenting the nuclear family as a problem that we have to do something about, rather than supporting the nuclear family and encouraging more families.
So that's very appealing to that side.
It's not appealing to anyone else.
And the thing is, the other people, you know, families, married women, they vote.
A lot of those radicals in the street, they don't vote.
That's the other dirty little secret.
A lot of these people that are marching in the street, I'm not even convinced that they really hate Trump as much as they pretend.
I just don't think they care about much of anything.
Yeah, they are leftist by political persuasion, but at the end of the day, they're also nihilists and empty.
And when you're looting and rioting and burning stuff, it's doing it because it's something to do.
Destroying for the sake of it empty lost people.
You can have a message that appeals to empty lost people, but it's not going to appeal to families.
If you're in a family, you're not empty and lost.
At the very least, you have that meaning in your life.
You care about your family and your kids, and that's what you're worried about when you go to the polls.
But this is not a message that the Democrat Party and leftists will embrace.
They certainly won't embrace it from me.
They won't even embrace it from their own.
And I guess that's all the better for Republicans, at least down the ballot.
All right, let's get to our daily cancellation.
Now for our daily cancellation.
Today we're canceling the entire state of Washington.
A great many potential and excellent reasons could be given for canceling Washington State, but the focus for me today is the first-ever voter-approved sex ed mandate, which was just passed by referendum on Election Day.
And there's a lot of other things happening with the election, but we can't lose sight of this.
Voters in Washington approved a measure to mandate that schools in the state teach so-called comprehensive sex ed to all students, starting in kindergarten.
Now, for more on the original bill which sparked this referendum, let me read some of LifeSite News' coverage from a few months ago.
This is what they say.
Pro-family advocates have sounded the alarm by highlighting the graphic lessons of sex ed curricula
that meet the bill's standards.
A sex ed curriculum by the pro-abortion, pro-LGBT group Advocates for Youth meets the bill's
standards and is already used in some Washington schools.
Called 3R, it heavily promotes gender theory, promiscuity, condoms and contraception, and abortion, as well as what is listed at the beginning of the article.
The 3R curriculum also directs teachers to have 14-year-old students role-play negotiating for sex.
Teachers are warned that if two, quote, cisgender heterosexual boys end up randomly being assigned to each other for this exercise, quote, it is possible they will have a homophobic response.
A 3R lesson plan called Creating Condom Confidence has ninth graders practice putting condoms on bananas or penis models.
Their homework assignment is to, quote, see what it's actually like to try to Try to get them yourselves.
Students are told they have a right to access condoms at any age, and that adults who make comments about them purchasing condoms can be reminded of that.
Other messages contained in the state-approved material, she says, include instructions on bondage, And, quote, body fluid play, how males can allegedly have babies, and why they should be allowed on girls' sports teams, and how to obtain abortions, cross-sex hormones, and HPV vaccinations without parental involvement.
This is a state-approved sex ed curriculum.
Defenders of the mandate will point out that the mandate doesn't tell schools they have to adopt that curriculum.
Fine.
But that's like passing a bill saying everyone has to eat a lump of crap for breakfast and someone objects and says, I don't want to eat dog crap for breakfast.
And you respond, well, you don't have to eat dog crap.
You can eat whatever kind of crap you want.
Crap is crap.
Comprehensive sex education is comprehensive sex education.
It is all basically the same.
It's all basically like what I just read to you.
The bill mandates comprehensive sex ed, and this is what comprehensive sex ed is.
This is what it contains.
This is the point of it.
To brainwash kids into this way of thinking and acting.
To this worldview.
This attitude about sex.
That means gender identity, transgenderism, the 53 genders, whatever.
All that's part of it, too.
It's automatically a part of it.
Because, again, that's what comprehensive sex ed is, and that's what it means.
So, think about what the voters of Washington have done here.
They have gone to the polls and voted for the government to sexually groom their own children.
It's pretty mind-boggling.
If you think your child should be told about all these things, then why don't you just tell them yourself?
I mean, I don't think you should, but asking the government to do it?
Willingly passing this whole subject off to the state is lunacy.
The voters of Washington are asking the government to corrupt their children.
They're saying, please, Uncle Sam, please.
This is not democracy's finest moment, I guess we could say.
Nor a great argument for it, to be frank.
Now, anytime this conversation about sex ed comes up, I'm always asked, well, Matt, if you don't believe in comprehensive sex ed for kids, then what kind of sex ed do you support?
That's an easy answer.
Because for me, the answer is none.
Nothing.
I don't support any form of sex ed in school at all.
I'm not advocating abstinence education.
No, I don't want government schools teaching my kids about how to abstain from sex.
I don't want them teaching them how to abstain from sex any more than I want them teaching my kids how to have sex.
I want them giving no tips, no advice, no moral lessons, no instruction of any kind on this subject, except for on a purely scientific and biological basis.
Teach them about human reproduction.
Yes, fine.
This is how babies are made.
And that's it.
When to have sex, should you have sex, how to have sex, what types of sex to have.
None of those topics should be covered or approached by government employees talking to a room full of children.
It's not their business.
It's not their place.
It's not why schools exist.
And in fact, talking about the basic birds and bees, ABCs of sex, human reproduction, the biology.
Yeah, that's something that you don't need a sex ed curriculum for that.
Much less a quote-unquote comprehensive sex ed curriculum.
And it doesn't need to start in kindergarten either.
That's something that you cover in science class, biology class.
You have a biology lesson, it's going to cover human reproduction.
That's all you need to say.
Now, the problem is that we're at the point now where I don't trust the government to teach that either.
Ten years ago, my argument was they should just teach the basics of biological reproduction.
Now, actually, I don't even trust them with that.
Because that means, given how the schools are run and the ideology that reigns supreme in schools, that means they're going to be teaching the kids that men can reproduce.
Now, I would like to see that lesson plan in the biology textbook.
I'd like to see how they explain that.
But that's the view.
That's the worldview they're approaching this from.
So even that, we're getting to a point where even that can't be approached.
But in an ideal scenario, The schools would teach the actual biological facts of sex, whenever that comes up in the curriculum, in biology class, in science class, and then that's it.
So it's science, and then you're also teaching math, and history, and English, and writing, and all of that.
We don't need to get into anyone's opinions, anyone's worldview about sex.
When you attach the word comprehensive in front of it, What that means is we are getting the teacher's worldview, their opinions about sex and sexuality.
Or the worldview and the opinion of the people who came up with the curriculum and the materials.
In this case, Planned Parenthood in Washington State, they've been huge advocates of this.
Of this referendum, of this bill, this mandate.
They love it.
So this is the Planned Parenthood, far-left, extreme worldview attached to it.
But as I said, I don't think, and this is why it annoys me that the debate over sex ed for so long has been, should it be liberal, comprehensive sex ed, or should it be abstinence education?
No, I don't think the solution here is to have the kids sit in a classroom with 30 other kids, have a government employee talk to them about sex, but instead of approaching it from a leftist worldview, approach it from a conservative Christian worldview.
No.
No.
I don't want my kids sitting there.
The argument or the reasons why children should Abstain from sex?
There are a lot of very good reasons for it.
The reasons why you should wait for marriage to have sex.
A lot of great reasons for that.
I don't trust my kid's health teacher if I sent them to public school, which I don't, but I wouldn't trust my kid's health teacher to handle that subject and make those arguments and present that case in a competent way.
I just don't trust them to do it.
Far too delicate, far too important.
And I don't think, and even if I did trust the teacher, which I don't, I don't think sitting in a classroom with 30 other kids is the right environment for that talk.
So get that out of the schools.
Let parents handle it.
That's something for the family, for the home.
It's not for schools.
But voters in Washington state, They want the school to do it.
They're saying, hands off.
I'll send my five-year-old over to you guys, and you do with him what you will.
Turn him into whatever you want to turn him into.
I'm hands off.
I mean, what am I, the parent?
Because of that, they are canceled.
And we'll leave it there today.
Thanks for watching, everybody.
Thanks for listening.
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.
