The Matt Walsh Show - Ep. 580 - Dems Add 'Court Packing' To List Of Redefined Terms

Episode Date: October 12, 2020

Today on the Matt Walsh Show, Democrats have made it clear that they absolutely will pack the court if they are given the power to do so, overturning a century of precedent and setting us down a dangerous path. They’re defense of this plan is to, as always, redefine the term “court packing,” claiming that Republicans are packing the court simply by filling vacant seats. Also Five Headlines including an unlicensed security guard apparently hired by an NBC affiliate shot and killed a Trump supporter. And Tucker Carlson talks about UFOs, and brings up a number of important questions. And in our Daily Cancellation, as is my custom on Columbus Day, I will cancel those who have been trying to posthumously cancel the great explorer. 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 Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Today on the Matt Wall Show, Democrats have made it clear that they absolutely will pack the court if they're given the power to do so, overturning a century of precedent and setting us down a very dangerous path. Their defense of this plan is to, as always, redefine the term, court packing, claiming that Republicans are packing the court simply by filling vacant seats. All of that is crazy. We'll talk about it. Also, five headlines, including an unlicensed security guard, apparently hired by an NBC affiliate, then proceeded to shoot and kill a Trump supporter. And Tucker Carlson talks about UFOs and brings up another. of important questions there. So we'll discuss that as well. And in our daily cancellation, as is my custom on this glorious Columbus Day, I will cancel those who have been trying

for years to posthumously cancel the Great Explorer. All of that on the way. But first, look, I don't know about you, but I've got to list a mile long of books I want to read. The problem is finding the time to actually read them. There's a lot of knowledge just sort of sitting out there to be consumed, but not nearly enough time to consume it all. And that's why I love and recommend thinker.org. At thinker.org, they summarize the key ideas from new and noteworthy nonfiction, giving you access to an entire library of great-sized books in bite-sized form, of great books, I should say, in bite-sized form. The idea here is to get the knowledge, the insight, even if you don't have the time to read the whole book. It's the closest thing to

the Matrix, where you can plug in and learn karate in 12 seconds or whatever. I mean, it's not that, but it's as good as we'll get in our reality to that. You can read or listen to 100, of titles in a matter of minutes, from old classics to recent bestsellers. They've even got a book from some guy named Matt Walsh. Not sure I recommend that one, but they have many great books and great minds in their catalog. Thinker.org offers a large variety of titles across many categories from current affairs, politics, business, education, history, relationships.

Personally, I gravitate to the history books, but I've dabbled in some of the other categories and found it very fruitful as well on thinker.org. If you want to challenge your preconceptions, expand your horizons, become a better thinker, go to thinker.org, T-H-I-N-K-R.org, to start a free trial and download the app today, let them know. You heard about them on the Matt Wall Show as well. That's thinker.org. All right.

Well, you know, one of the primary tools of the left, one of their most effective tools, a tool that has helped them win the culture and crush their ideological foes, is that of redefinition. We talk about this a lot on this show, probably so much that you get tired of hearing about it, but definitions are important. We can't communicate without them. To communicate, what does communication mean? To communicate is to convey meaning. If you control the definition of words, then you control communication. You make it so that people are submitting to your worldview, advancing it, promoting it, agreeing with it implicitly, simply by speaking.

Even if they don't want to agree with it, they still are. Perfect example, off-sighted on this program, is the word gender. The left took the word gender, which was always a grammatical term. Words had a gender, not people. That's the way it used to be. And they invented a new use, a new definition of that term. And for decades since then, even people who disagree with their gender theories still use the word gender in the context and way that the left wants,

thereby agreeing with their underlying premise, that humans have both sex and gender, which are distinct. Many other examples can be mentioned here. But the fascinating thing is to see this process play out in real time, which we do quite a lot now. With the advent of the internet and 24-hour cable news, it can happen instantaneously. You could wake up in the morning and have breakfast under the security and comfort of knowing that a certain word means a certain thing. And by lunchtime, when you're eating your sandwich, that word means something else entirely. It's that fast. Just like that, the word changes meaning.

So the latest example, not quite as far-reaching or culturally significant as the word gender, but still impactful in its own way, is the term court packing. Now, as long as this term has existed, which isn't for very long in the grand scheme, but it has been in reference to any scheme to add more justices to the Supreme Court, add more seats, not merely fill a vacancy, add more in order to seize ideological control of the Supreme Court. That's what the term meant. But now the Democrats clearly plan to do this themselves, and given the terms negative connotation, they've decided to, all at once, redefine it. And just like that, court packing is not adding seats to the bench, but simply filling empty seats. Many prominent voices on the left have adopted this talking point. As I said, all at once, just overnight, including Dan Rather, who tweeted,

can we at least recognize that court packing at all levels of the judiciary has been the Republican playbook for Decades asking for Eric Garland. No, Dan, we can't recognize that because it's a fantasy that's false. But it's a fantasy that Democrats are widely engaging in. Here's Senator Dick Durbin on NBC. Listen. Senator Durbin, did the fact that Vice President Biden used the phrase court packing, was that a tell of where the vice president stands on this,

that he doesn't want to see this happen? Well, I can tell you that we're getting this question. It's a common question being asked. because American people have watched the Republicans packing the court over the last three and a half years, and they brag about it. They've taken every vacancy and filled it. Did you know that they've sent us and we have approved only with their votes, I might add, 10 people who have been judged unanimously unqualified by the American Bar Association? Do you know how many judicial nominees came from Obama who were judged unanimously unqualified? None.

They've taken every vacancy and filled it, he says, as opposed to what, Dick, leaving the vacancy open in the name of, what, good sportsmanship? This really is the Democratic argument. It's not a straw man. They are arguing that Republicans should leave judicial seats open, not just the Supreme Court, but judicial seats in general should be left open in order to be nice to the Democrats. That's their argument. Here's Senator Chris Coons making the same argument. Well, I'm going to be laying out the ways in which Judge Barrett's views, her views on reaching back and reconsidering and overturning long-settled precedent are not just extreme, they're disqualifying. She has taught at a well-regarded law school. She clerked for Justice Scalia,

but she has views that make her not qualified to serve on the Supreme Court. President Trump has said he would only nominate someone who would overturn the Affordable Care Act, taking away health care protections for more than 100 million Americans in the middle of a pandemic. And both President Trump and members of the majority on this committee have said they would only vote for a nominee who would overturn Roe v. Wade. As I will lay out in my questioning this week, we shouldn't be having this hearing with two members of the committee infected with COVID. It's rushed. It constitutes court packing, and her views are too extreme to qualify her to serve on this court. And of course, Joe Biden, like a good, empty suited would-be presidential figurehead,

is repeating this line himself and adding his own twist to it, The only court packing is going on right now. It's going on with the Republicans packing the court now. It's not constitutional what they're doing. We should be focused on what's happening right now. And the fact is that the only packing going on is this court is being packed now by the Republicans. After the vote has already begun, I'm going to stay focused on it so we don't take the eyes off. It's unconstitutional what they're doing. Oh, really? How so? Where is it written in the

Constitution that presidents are only allowed to nominate justices for the first three and a half years of their presidency? But then after that, it's a grace period for the other party. And the president has to pretend he isn't president, even though he is. Where is that? Can you please, can you, can you cite? Give me chapter and verse here because, Joe, I've looked and I haven't found it. But I suppose we, I suppose we shouldn't expect coherence from the same guy who said, that voters don't deserve to know his own position on the subject of court packing. He was asked about this and said explicitly, no, they don't deserve to know. Listen.

I've got to ask you about packing the courts. And I know that you said yesterday, you aren't going to answer the question until after the election. But this is the number one thing that I've been asked about from viewers in the past couple of days. Well, you've been asked by the viewers who are probably Republicans who don't want me continuing to talk about what they're doing to the court right now. Well, sir, don't the voters deserve to know? They don't disagree. I'm not going to play his game. He'd love me to talk about, and I've already said something on court PAC. He'd love that to be the discussion instead of what he's doing now. They don't deserve to know, he says. The voters do not deserve to know what the president's actual policy position is.

The voters do not deserve to know if the guy who is running for president will overturn over a century of precedent and reshape the court by force setting off a court packing arms race where every successive president. will add seats until there are 600 seats on the court with no end to the expansion in sight. We don't deserve to know that. Interesting, coming from the guy who recently tweeted, the American people deserve to know what Donald Trump is hiding in his tax returns. So to be clear, here's the deal, as Biden would say. The deal is that the American people deserve to know the personal financial information of the president, but they don't deserve to know about his public policy positions,

even one as consequential as this. So it looks like the word deserves has also been redefined, which I suppose it already happened. It's been redefined a long time ago. So to review now, the Democrats have advanced two primary arguments to defend their view that Amy Cody Barrett should not have been nominated and shouldn't be confirmed.

One is that it defies the magisterial dying wish of Ruth Bader Ginsburg. That's one of their arguments. The other is that any time a Republican fills a vacant court seat, it is automatically a court packing scheme and is also unconstitutional, even though the Constitution expressly gives them the authority to do it. These are their arguments. You could decide for yourself whether they are persuasive or not.

Let's get to five headlines. You know, we're all spending our lives online probably much more than we should be. But if you're online, you've got to make sure you're protecting yourself, protecting your online data. Here's something you might not know about synthetic identity fraud. It's one of the fastest growing financial crimes in the United States. It happens when criminals use a combination of fake and real information to create an entirely new identity. They combine real personally identifiable information such as your Social Security number with a fake name and addressed open bank accounts. They can seek credit.

They can even obtain health insurance. It's important to understand how cybercrime and identity theft are affecting our lives. and they're affecting our lives in many, many ways. Every day we put our information at risk on the internet, and you could miss certain identity threats if you're just looking at your credit score or checking your bank accounts. Those are good things to do,

but you're going to miss a lot of stuff if you do it just like that. That's why you need LifeLock. LifeLock detects a wide range of identity threats, like your social security number, being for sale in the dark web. And the other thing is people, people, I know we've all made mistakes.

Sometimes we're more reckless than we should be. Like things people do, like have the same. password for all of your different accounts. I understand the inclination to do that, right, because you have so many accounts. And I know for me, I come up with a password. I forget it two seconds later. And so I'm always doing the forgot password thing. And then they email it to you. I do that over and over again with all my accounts. But when you have the same password, you're leaving yourself vulnerable to identity theft. And that's, again, why you need lifelock. No one can

prevent all identity theft or monitor all transactions at all businesses. But you can find out if your information is on the dark web, get your free dark web scan at lifelock.com slash scan. Pick the plan that's right for you. Save up to 25% off with code Walsh as well. That's a free scan at lifelock.com slash scan and 25% off with promo code Walsh. All right, number one, a Trump supporter was shot and killed at a protest in Denver over the weekend. He apparently sprayed mace at the shooter who responded by killing him. You can see a photo of the fateful encounter here. Mace is not a lethal weapon.

So this would seem to be a disproportionate response. Now, the man with the gun is named Matthew Doloff. He was arrested for murder at the scene. The interesting thing is that apparently he was hired as private security by a local news station. That's NBC affiliate Nine News. And here's the other interesting thing. According to city officials, Doloff was not licensed as a security guard in the city. So it would seem that a news channel hired, whether knowingly or not, an unlicensed armed security guard who then proceeded to shoot and kill a pro-Trump demonstrator.

This ought to warrant charges, I would think, not just for Doloff, but for nine news as well. All right. Number two, Keith Olberman still exists, apparently. It seems we haven't heard much from him in recent years. At least I hadn't heard anything from him. I assume that he had returned to his layer deep in the earth somewhere, but he has reemerged now. He has been maybe summoned after somebody read a curse from an old book in an attic somewhere. And now he's back on the scene, and he's about as reasonable and coherent as you remember. Listen. Trump can be and must be expunged.

The hate he has triggered, the Pandora's box he has opened, they will not be so easily destroyed. So, let us brace ourselves. The task is twofold. The terrorist Trump must be defeated, must be destroyed, must be devoured at the ballot box. And then he, at his enablers, and his supporters, and his collaborators,

and the Mike Lees, and the William Barrs, and the Sean Hannity's, and the Mike Pence's, and the Rudy Giuliani's, and the Kyle Rittenhouses, and the Amy Coney Barrett's must be prosecuted and convicted and removed from our society while we try to rebuild it and to rebuild the world Trump has nearly destroyed by turning it over to a virus.

Remember it, even as we dream of a return to reality and safety and the country for which our forefathers died, that the fight is not just to win an election, but to win it by enough to chase, at least for a moment, Trump and the maggots off the stage, and then try to clean up what they left. Remember it, even though to remember it, means remembering that the fight does not end November 3rd,

but in many ways will only begin that day. Yes, he says that Amy Coney Barrett, along with Bill Bard, of course, Trump, and a number of others, should be prosecuted, convicted, and removed from society. First of all, when we're in the midst of, you know, the media's blaming Donald Trump for supposedly encouraging violence or encouraging white supremacists, which he's not doing. But how about this? You've got a prominent, I guess, I guess he's still prominent. You've got a prominent voice on the left, at least a well-known voice, saying that

Amy Coney-Barrant Supreme Court nominee should be removed from society. Look, I understand that in the feverish fantasy-fueled minds of leftists, Trump is responsible for all. manner of crimes against humanity, and so that's why they're always calling for him to be arrested. But what crime did Amy Coney Barrett commit? Even in their feverish fantasy-filled minds. What crime are you accusing her of committing exactly? At least with Trump, I know what crimes they're accusing him of committing. Like they're accusing him of being a Russian spy.

So I understand that. It's ridiculous, but I understand it. What are you even saying that Amy Coney-Barrant did? Did she go 12 miles over the speed limit on the way to dropping your kid off for soccer practice? Is that the crime? We're at the point now where these people, they don't even bother making up a fake crime. They just work themselves into a sweat and scream that everyone that they don't like should be in prison. They don't even bother to explain why.

That's their argument style. So you say to them, so here's my view on this subject. Oh, yeah? Well, well, you should be in prison. Prison! Go to prison! What? Dude, I was just telling you that I think Batman Begins was better than the dark night. That's all I'm trying to say The thing is I also think because I know you hear me talking about this and you're probably thinking well, you're a hypocrite man because

Don't you often say that your political opponents and many other people should be locked in prison? Well, yes, I do, but I'm a theocratic fascist. So that's my whole thing, right? That's part of it. If you're pretending to be opposed to fascism, then this approach doesn't work. But anyway, glad to see that Olberman is back. Always elevating the national dialogue, doesn't he? All right, number three, Julie Borowski is a political commentator, more on the libertarian side of things. She says she was kicked off a flight because her toddler wouldn't wear a mask. Here's the tweet. She says, we got kicked off a flight.

Our two and a half year old wouldn't put on a mask. We had practiced beforehand, but he wasn't having it. And then she tagged Southwest. So apparently she was on Southwest. She says Southwest staff was apologetic. I get they don't make the rules. I hope airlines ease up the rules because this really limits families with toddlers. Yeah.

Well, Julie here is being much nicer and more polite about it than I would be if that were me. Yet kicked off your flight, two and a half year old won't wear a mask. Of course he won't. Of course a two and a half year old won't wear a mask. Here, in fact, is what I'll say. And there may be some exceptions for this. But broadly speaking, if you have managed to scare your two and a half year old to such an extent that he will actually keep his mask on for hours at a time, then I think it's very likely you're a horrible parent and person. I just, I can't even conceive.

I've got a three-year-old, almost four. And he won't keep his mask on. And I'm not going to force him to. Most of the time when we're going in somewhere, I don't even give him a mask. We just go in and that's it. Or I'll hand it to him and then he'll immediately put it in his pocket. Fine. I did my, you know, I tried to comply with the rules.

I did my part. Two and a half year old, though, is, that's just crazy to even expect it. And so I'm just trying to imagine to get a two and a half year old to do that. I mean, it's possible you have a two and a half year old with an extremely sort of obedient personality and extremely cooperative. Maybe there are a few of those two and a half year olds out there. But the vast majority of them are not going to do that. In order to get them to do it, you would, the psychological manipulation you would have to employ to convince them to do it and keep it on their face is unthinkable to me. This whole thing is crazy. This is absolutely insane.

And never mind the fact that it has been repeatedly shown that there's very, that there's very, that there's very, that, there's probably a very low risk of someone who's two and a half contracting or spreading the virus. And on top of that, remember that what we're always told, right, is you wear the mask for me, right? You wear the mask for me. You don't wear it for yourself. You wear it for other people. And so when we are forcing crying, confused, scared toddlers to wear masks, we can't even pretend we're doing it for their sake. Can we? We're doing it for us. We're doing it to protect us from them. That's what we're doing. It's cowardly, it's disgusting, it's disgraceful. Shame on Southwest for that. And yes, they have the right to make whatever rules they want for their

business, but that doesn't mean that if the rules are insane, that doesn't mean we can't criticize it. And we can hear and we should. Number four, speaking of insane, Gal Godot is going to start in a movie about Cleopatra. And that's not the insane part. That part, you know, it's fine. Because we live in the dumbest possible world, this has provoked backlash from people who are mad that Cleopatra's ethnicity or her ethnic identity is being appropriated. One person leading the charge is Abdul El-Said, CNN commentator and public health doctor self-described. He says, so there were no Egyptian women to play an Egyptian queen? Yes, very offensive. Very offensive. I'm also scandalized that they couldn't find anyone who actually was alive in the year 50 BC.

I mean, you're telling me that out of all the 2,000-year-old people on earth, you couldn't find one to play this role, someone who could speak authentically to the lived experience of people who lived 50 years before Christ? Of course, looked at another way, this is all very stupid. Very, very, very stupid for many reasons. Not the least of which being that Cleopatra wasn't Egyptian, actually. She was Greek. Second, are there?

Every time we hear this, oh, we couldn't find an actor or actress of this ethnicity to play this role? Well, how do you know there are? I mean, are there Egyptian actresses who could play this role effectively, who would actually be best for it? Maybe there are, maybe there aren't. I don't know. You're just assuming it. At the very least, if you're going to do this, put forward a person who you think would be better for the role, actual person, not an ethnicity or a skin color, an actual person. And then explain why you think they're better for it going beyond their ethnicity or skin color. But all of that is irrelevant

because the third point, of course, is that the job of an actor is to pretend to be what they are not. That is literally the entire job. That is what they are paid to do. And it used to be that the further an actor or actress was from the identity of the role, the more impressed we were with the performance. In other words, the more unlike the actor is from the role, that just makes it. even more impressive. Think about, you know, Daniel Day Lewis in my left foot playing a paraplegic. He's not paraplegic himself. And these days, you could never get away with that. Because it'd be said, well, what about a paraplegic actor? I don't know. How many of paraplegic actors are there? Or are you just saying we can never tell this story until we have actors of that

of that identity. But back then, when it was saying 30 years ago, whenever that movie came out, everybody was impressed with the performance because here's an able-bodied person able to portray this role, even though he is not that himself, but he was able to effectively portray it.

And very impressive. It was a great job acting precisely because he is so himself unlike that role. All right. Number five. Finally, Tucker Carlson last week did a segment on its show where he discussed UFO sightings. And specifically, this new documentary

that was just released called The Phenomenon. Here's a clip of the Carlson segment, which includes some clips of the documentary. Listen. We used to be defensive on this topic, but there's no reason to be. There is now an enormous amount of evidence, including physical evidence,

that UFOs, whatever they are, are real. Why don't we know a lot more about this? Because the government has hidden that information from us, outrageously. But now some of that information has come into public view, thanks to a new documentary called The Phenomenon, we learned the feds are hiding more than we thought they were.

All we're saying, nobody has to agree that why it's there, but shouldn't we at least be spending some money to study all these phenomena? Shouldn't we study the stuff? The answer is yes, and that's all this was about. And why the federal government all these years has covered up, put brake pads on everything, stopped it. I think it's very, very bad for our country. Are you saying that there's some evidence that still hasn't seen the light of the day?

I'm saying most of it hasn't seen the light of day. It's outrageous. And it's not a partisan question, by the way. That, of course, was former Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid of Nevada, a Democrat if there ever was one. But that's not even the biggest claim he makes. According to the film, Reed said that UFOs have actually and repeatedly interfered with our nuclear weapons capabilities. So where are these UFOs from? Some researchers told the filmmakers that their origins are becoming clearer. Dr. Jacques Vallet has collected purported metal debris from UFO cases dating as far back as 1947

that experts are analyzing in a state-of-the-art laboratory. He was astonished to find their composition was unlike any known metal. This material was manufactured. It's not natural. It's not natural to the materials that we have around us in the lab or on the Earth. Yeah, physical evidence of extraterrestrial spaceships visiting Earth. Not a big deal. It's nothing compared to like the fly on Mike Pence's forehead.

And he's right. You know, the most amazing thing about all this is that so few people seem to care. We've got photographic evidence, video evidence, physical evidence of these things, and everyone just sort of shugs their shoulders and moves on. Now, I watched the documentary myself after seeing the Carlson segment, and as one of the weirdos who, myself, I'm one of the weird people where I've watched a bunch of UFO documentaries in my day. I can say that this one is by far in a way the most credible and impressive of any that I've ever seen. Even the narrator, who you heard there, he's, I don't know what his name is, but I recognize that voice. I watch a lot of documentaries in general.

and this is a guy who does like Ken Burns films and PBS documentaries, a mainstream documentary narrator. And the film includes, as you saw, former prominent, very prominent government officials, politicians, former military officials, scientists. These are credible people for the most part. I don't mean, Harry Reid, I don't know if I'd call them credible. In fact, I wouldn't. But even there, When it comes to ideological things, I don't think he's credible, but that he's putting his name next to this. Also, they've got supposed eyewitnesses, lots of photographic and video evidence, like I mentioned, all in the documentary. The thing is, one objection you often hear to the UFO claims is that, well, if UFOs were real and aliens were actually visiting, we should have very good evidence of it by now. Why is it that, like with Bigfoot, somehow nobody's ever come forward with really remarkable physical evidence or video evidence.

of this. Why is it that even in modern times, everybody who records one of these phenomena, you know, manages to get video of it seems to be recording it with their grandmother's toaster oven. Why isn't it that everyone's carrying around these really advanced videos, you know, cameras in their pockets? Why hasn't it ever been captured? Well, the thing is, that's true of Bigfoot. Yeah, that's a very good argument against Bigfoot. There are a lot of good arguments against it, but one of them is just we've never had, there's never been anything close to actual compelling evidence of that. As far as UFOs, though, actually there has been a lot of really good evidence.

Photos, videos, physical evidence. It just seems that nobody believes it. Even the good evidence, nobody believes. And so you start to think what kind of evidence would the average person actually need to see in order to entertain the idea that maybe this really is extraterrestrial in origin? Probably short of being personally visited by alien beings, the average person won't be convinced. By the way, and not to say that I'm convinced, as in I'm 100% on board that I'm sure that these are aliens. I'm just saying that a lot of this stuff is interesting.

And the photographic evidence goes back decades. There have been very interesting photos of flying saucers from the 50s that have been investigated by various government commissions and so forth, and have been labeled unexplained, as in they aren't obviously manipulated or staged. None of the obvious explanations hold. So we're left with what is it? So there is something going on here. I think we could say at a minimum with certainty that we have proof of the existence of aircraft

that far exceeds the known technological ability of modern man. And when we say far exceeds, we mean stuff that is like hundreds of years or more beyond our known capabilities. It's easy to speculate, of course, that some government somewhere has this technology and is testing it out. But the problem is that, first of all, these sightings go back to the 40s and 50s. If a world government somewhere had access to this technology 70 years ago, you'd think they would have used it by now in a very noticeable, significant way. is it believable that some other world power is that far ahead of us and yet hasn't used that power in any noticeable way? I don't know.

Of course, when you compare that explanation, which seems implausible, with the idea that some intelligent civilization is visited, which both are implausible, which is more implausible. And you can make a good argument that the alien civilization is more implausible. But still, there's definitely something going on here. here. And when we get to the point where you have government officials on the record saying, I don't know, this is weird, that should make us take notice, I think. All right. Of course, you always have to guard against wishful thinking with these sorts of things because I would love for it to actually be aliens, just because that would be cool. And even if they're, if they're coming here to invade the earth and kill us all, all right. Okay. We had a good run. I'm okay with that too. So there's a silver lining to that as well. So you have to guard against the

wishful thinking when it comes to these kinds of things. We're going to get to our daily cancellation just a second. But before we do, I want to tell you about our good friends over at Ready Wise. We've been telling you for a long time about Wise foods. Well, now they are Ready Wise. That's the new name. And you've got to be prepared. Speaking of things happening in the future, you've got to be prepared for whatever happens in the future, even if it's an alien invasion. But it could be something a little bit less interesting than that. We've discovered that in recent times as well. You never know what's going to happen and you've got to be prepared. Now is a better time than any to be prepared with long-term nutritional food options. Readywise has many options like emergency meals,

freeze-dried fruits and vegetables for convenient on the go nutrition. They also have adventure meals for hiking, camping, other outdoor activities. So this is stuff that you could use even if there's not some sort of emergency situation just in your everyday life. Due to increased demand, supplies are limited. Some items may be currently, I've been currently. of stock. What that just means is you've got to go right now and get your order in. Readywise uses the finest ingredients and latest food preparation technology to ensure optimal taste and freshness. Every recipe is crafted by a team of chefs to provide a nutritional meal during critical times and it also tastes good on top of that. Each meal is a combination of both

dehydrated and freeze-dried ingredients. Meals are packed into durable, long-lasting pouches designed to keep food fresh for up 25 years. You've got to take responsibility and be prepared in times like these. And this week, my listeners can get free shipping at readywise.com when entering Walsh at checkout or by calling 855-475-3089. Ready-wise is a 90-day no questions asked return policy, so there's no risk taking the initiative to get yourself and your family prepared today. that's ready wise r-a-d-d-y-w-I-S-E dot com promo code walsh to get free shipping today

and one of the thing to mention to you um something going on here at the daily wire it's baseball season and the old glory daily wire baseball bat is back that's our limited edition handcrafted custom painted baseball bat emblazoned with the daily wire logo when we first put this bat out a numbered a numbered edition a few months ago it's sold out in 48 hours that's how quickly it went away. And that was when it was available to all access members only. Now anybody can purchase it, but inventory is still limited. So we had it available just to all access members, 48 hours it was gone. Now it's for everybody. So what you've got to do is act fast, text the word baseball to 83400. That's baseball to 83400 to purchase your bat today. All right, let's get to our daily

cancellation. Today for our daily cancellation, as it is Columbus Day, I will, as is my custom and has been for years now, deliver my defense of the great man, Christopher Columbus. As we know, Columbus Day has become primarily an opportunity for historically illiterate preening dimwits to spend their time screeching about a fictional version of history where Europeans were the first introduced rape, pillage, and slavery to the universally peaceful and noble inhabitants of the new world. Of course, in reality, it would be quite impossible for the Spanish to introduce rape pillage and slavery to this part of the world, where rape pillage and slavery have been utterly commonplace for centuries, as it had been commonplace everywhere on the globe.

But don't tell that to the dimwit. The dimwits, who you'll notice say they hate Columbus and everything he stood for and represents, yet we'll still take the day off if it's offered to them. They don't hate them that much. And speaking of dimwits again, the dimwit capital, Dimwitopia, as we might call it, Portland saw another riot last night, this time under the name of indigenous people day of rage. And it was a chance for indigenous people or those who claimed to be or the allies of such or just people who feel like, you know, tearing stuff down, to go around destroying things, anything at random, because they're enraged. They have rage, you see.

They have rage over events that occurred over 500 years ago. And because of this rage, they have, as you could see here, this photo, toppled an Abraham Lincoln statue and other status. They're mad about stuff that happened 500 years ago, so they tore down the statue of a man who lived 150 years ago. Makes sense. Actually, no, it doesn't. And aside from the general historical literacy of the anti-Columbus faction, it must also be said that if you're experiencing actual rage over things that happened half a millennium ago, you are mentally ill. It's not normal or healthy to be sitting around in the year 2020 stewing over stuff that happened in the year 1506. But obviously, I'm being intentionally naive. The people rioting, they're not enraged about anything. They're just bored and numb and destroying stuff because they can.

And it's fun. Now, getting back to the broader war against our national heroes, one that is largely led not by indigenous people, but by white liberals. And you'll notice something about these self-hating white guilt-ridden folks. They would never suggest that the nightmarish brutality of many Native American tribes outweighs whatever they accomplished, Even the propensity for cannibalism among some tribes must be understood in context, we're told. Yet somehow, the sins of some European settlers automatically negates everything that European explorers achieved and discovered.

And besides, of course, the modern critic will note, Columbus didn't even mean to discover America. And he never set foot in North America. And the Vikings got here first. What an idiot. What a moron. Yes, those are all nice tidbits of information you acquired from Facebook memes, but they're irrelevant. Of course Columbus didn't mean to discover America. Nobody knew that America existed. How does that undermine the significance of the discovery? If some future team of intrepid astronauts accidentally discover a life-bearing moon on Jupiter

on their way to exploring Pluto, should we dismiss their groundbreaking history-shaping discovery on the basis that they originally intended to make a different groundbreaking history-shaping discovery? As for the Vikings, again, how is Columbus's incredible feat diminished by Leif Erickson's exploits in a relatively small sliver of the North Atlantic 500 years prior. You may as well say that it would be unimpressive for me to cure cancer because Jonas Salk already cured polio. We should also remember, and it seems that modern people really have forgotten this fact, that Columbus did not have the benefit of satellite navigation. He made his way by dead reckoning through uncharted waters. Most of us cannot even conceive of what that would be like to go sailing over an ocean,

You have no idea how big it is or where it leads. Over the course of his voyages, he discovered many Caribbean islands, explored the coasts of South and Central America. He didn't make it to North America, but he made it possible for future settlers to soon find it. That's quite an achievement, I would say. Or must he be blamed for only discovering half of the Western Hemisphere while recklessly neglecting to discover the other half? That guy only discovered half of a hemisphere.

What a dope! That seems a rather stringent standard, especially coming from people who can't locate their local source supermarket without GPS assistance? And what about the natives that Columbus encountered? Yes, many of them were peaceful. And we all agree that mistreatment of peaceful people is wrong, anywhere it happens. By the same token, we should bear mind that the sort of Russoian vision of the universally noble savage occupying the new world was incorrect and ridiculous. Columbus was, for example, in the neighborhood of the Caribs, of violent people who would

capture and consume other human beings. Columbus heard stories about this tribe and on his first voyage bumped into them on his second. Columbus was close to Aztec territory as well. He never met them. That civilizational clash would be saved for later, but it's worth noting that the Aztec Empire was not exactly a picture of peace and serenity. Tens of thousands of people were captured and killed as human sacrifices every year in macabre religious ceremonies. An offering was laid on a stone, at the top of a temple. His beating heart was ripped out of his chest. His arms and legs were often hacked off

and consumed by the priests. And his limbless carcass was rolled down the steps. This process was repeated dozens or even hundreds of times in a single night and thousands of times over the course of a year. Now, for a long time, historians and archaeologists assured us that the Spanish fabricated or exaggerated these stories of Aztec barbarism.

They say the same about the stories of Carib barbarism. but then they discovered the skull racks buried in Mexico City. Columbus never governed with the savagery of an Aztec king or a Carib chieftain, but he did take slave, that's true. He was a man of his time in that way. Although the Spanish would eventually outlaw slavery and beat almost every other culture in the world by hundreds of years in doing so, they cannot be absolved of their role in that ubiquitous evil. Neither can they be uniquely blamed for it either. That's the point. We can wag our fingers about it, but we cannot wag our fingers selectively. If we call the Spanish genocidal, we must say the same about indigenous people who participated in the same kinds of

crimes. If we convict the Europeans of stealing land, we must convict the natives for the same crime. We must convict all of history, in fact, and all people. Because before the globe was settled, and we could all live comfortably in a country where the greatest threat to our survival for most of us is that the DoorDash guy will take more than 25 minutes to deliver our take-out sushi. Before all of that, every inch of inhabited space was fought over and blood soaked the ground. And a man could only claim what he was willing and able to kill to keep. You did not own anything that you could not defend. I am not saying the world should have been that way. I'm saying that my ideas of what should have been are irrelevant. I'm telling you

what was. And it was that way everywhere, for all people, for thousands of years. The knife of historical moralizing then only cuts whoever tries to wield it. So I suggest that we mature a little bit and learn to view history in its context. Seen through that lens, Columbus appears before us as a deeply flawed but incredibly brave and ingenious man who was responsible for one of the great achievements in the history of mankind. Perhaps you could have done better, but probably not. You probably wouldn't have even tried. And that's why Columbus gets his own holiday and you don't. He earned it. You might complain about him, but I take note of the fact that you still remain in this country, living off the fat of its land and enjoying fruit from trees

planted by people greater and more significant than yourself. So go ahead and scoff at those men as you feast on the bounty they provided you. But, you know, pardon me while I dismiss your criticism and offer a little toast to Christopher Columbus. And to everybody else who has a balanced view of history. To the people who don't, I say, you're canceled. Columbus is not. You are. And we'll leave it there. Happy Columbus Day, everybody. Have a great day. Godspeed.

If you enjoyed this episode, don't forget to subscribe. And if you want to help spread the word, please give us a five-star review. tell your friends to subscribe as well. We're available on Apple Podcasts, Spotify, wherever you listen to podcasts. We're there. Also, be sure to check out the other Daily Wire podcast, including the Ben Shapiro 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 DailyWire 2020. The moderator of the next presidential debate gets caught as a partisan hack. Democrats try to redefine court packing, and the WHO comes out against lockdowns. Check it out on the Michael Null's show.